Remember me
▼ Content

Empirical Evidence for Man-made Global Warming



Page 5 of 5<<<345
03-06-2020 18:11
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'global warming'.
An increase in the mean temperature of Earth at ground level.

Circular definition.
Try again.
Give me a definition of a temperature you do not consider circular?

We are talking about "global warming" (whatever that is), not temperature. Temperature has already been defined for you.

tmiddles wrote:
Totally unclear what you are objection to.

You cannot define a word with itself. You are doing the equivalent of defining 'water' as "water".

tmiddles wrote:
Human core body temperature: the temperature of the internal organs of a human being.

You're getting side-tracked from attempting to define "global warming"... Stay focused!


tmiddles wrote:
I could go on. But how about you stop playing games and say what you mean GFM?

Not playing games, and I already have.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...This attempt of yours to define Global Warming is going to smack right into the 2nd law of thermodynamics ...
Great and maybe you'll debate me on it this time. I know ITN won't

They've already debated you about it. So have I.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Does Global Warming involve an increase in the planet's entire average global temperature or does the earth's lower atmosphere increase in temperature and the upper atmosphere cool exactly enough to offset the increase below so as to maintain the earth's average global temperature?
It very well could be that the upper atmosphere get's colder, that there is a temperature trade off. I don't know. But the title "global warming" refers to the spherical zone of Earth that humans are focused on: ground level (or the bottom of the atmosphere).

Just as I might talk about a persons "core body temperature" or alternatively, shift my focus to the temperature of their fingers and toes as frost bite is the concern.

Does it change the results of global warming, as defined above, in any way if the thermosphere were to cool to offset the increase on the ground? Wouldn't melting ice, mating mosquitoes and all the things we would be effected by still experience the same change either way?

You have not defined "global warming" in any usable meaningful way. Try again.

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'global warming'.
An increase in the mean temperature of Earth at ground level.


Despite your circular derfinition, let's assume that we are only talking about the surface. That is the closed system.
Why is it a closed system?

This has already been explained to you.

tmiddles wrote:
If I talk about someones core body temperature that isn't a closed system either.

What is a "closed system", according to tmiddles? A system containing a lid? A system that is no longer operating?
03-06-2020 20:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...This attempt of yours to define Global Warming is going to smack right into the 2nd law of thermodynamics ...
Great and maybe you'll debate me on it this time.

Have you, by any chance, learned it yet?

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Does Global Warming involve an increase in the planet's entire average global temperature or does the earth's lower atmosphere increase in temperature and the upper atmosphere cool exactly enough to offset the increase below so as to maintain the earth's average global temperature?
It very well could be that the upper atmosphere get's colder, that there is a temperature trade off. I don't know. But the title "global warming" refers to the spherical zone of Earth that humans are focused on: ground level (or the bottom of the atmosphere).

The way you have framed Global Warming it must be summarily dismissed, as in you have stripped away all the information I would need to even tell you what and where your error is.

I won't rehash my explanation; you know that you cannot subdivide the atomic unit of a science model and still expect to use that model. The earth is the body in question and your model of Global Warming resides entirely within a subdivision of the earth ... ergo, it's just wrong.

When I attempted to pan out and to look at the entirety of the body (earth), i.e. "Does Global Warming involve an increase in the planet's entire average global temperature or does the earth's lower atmosphere increase in temperature and the upper atmosphere cool exactly enough to offset the increase below so as to maintain the earth's average global temperature?" ... your response of "I don't know" was just another way of saying "I'm not budging from my subdivision of the atomic unit." If we cannot discuss what is happening with the body (earth) then we cannot apply science and we are left with only voodoo as an explanation for anything.

So we're done. When you do get around to telling me what Global Warming does to the average global temperature, i.e. to the body (earth) then I will explain to you what science you are violating. Until then I don't have enough information to consider.

tmiddles wrote: Does it change the results of global warming,

There are no results of anything that is completely undefined.

tmiddles wrote: as defined above,

It's not defined above. You are trying to make the argument that a largely undefined volume has largely undefined magical superpowers. You are then trying to claim that your vague assertion is somehow a definition, ... one that supposedly supports your argument ... which serves as the definition ... that supports your argument ... which serves as the definition ... ad infinitum.

Do you see the problem here?


I'll be succinct. This is your starting gate, out of which you still have not gotten:

1. What effect do you claim Global Warming has on the earth's average global temperature?

2. Why should any rational person believe your answer to question #1?

Just those two questions you need to answer before there can really be any other discussion.
.
Attached image:


Edited on 03-06-2020 20:25
Page 5 of 5<<<345





Join the debate Empirical Evidence for Man-made Global Warming:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Does the absence of empirical evidence for CAGW give you pause for thought?4813-05-2020 22:35
Made a graph of low equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates to show that the IPCC's best estimate o203-03-2020 02:17
22 Reasons to be Skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming21629-01-2020 05:52
man made or natural31527-01-2020 21:32
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N252624-01-2020 06:17
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact