How can scientists know the 1 C increase in global average temperature was not all natural?

Tai Hai Chen wrote: How can scientists know the 1 C increase in global average temperature was not all natural?

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Natural transition is fast and typically takes about a decade for transition between little ice age and and little interglacial. The medieval warm period for instance was a lot warmer than today when Vikings settled in Greenland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LObn2Sk7tVg

Barts wrote: The general theory is that extra-CO2 is the only factor that can account for such a warming.

Barts wrote: All the other factors have been pretty stable in the last century, therefore they can't account for changing climate.

IBdaMann wrote:

Barts wrote: The general theory is that extra-CO2 is the only factor that can account for such a warming.

CO2 cannot cause warming.

The earth is likely cooling at this moment.

Barts wrote: All the other factors have been pretty stable in the last century, therefore they can't account for changing climate.

How were all factors considered? The entire countless list? Were Nepalese tree mites really considered? How was that achieved in anyone's lifetime?

Wiki
Factors that can shape climate are called climate forcings or "forcing mechanisms". These include processes such as variations in solar radiation, variations in the Earth's orbit, variations in the albedo or reflectivity of the continents and oceans, mountain-building and continental drift and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.

...and why hasn't anyone spoken up about CO2 not having the magical superpower to create energy?
.

Barts wrote: Hmmm.. can you provide some support for your claims??

Barts wrote: It seems you're speaking against common scientific knowledge, so it would help your case to provide some kind of meaningful support..

Barts wrote: I think I meant globally meaningful factors for climate change, that's quite clear from the context.

Barts wrote: a source for you on climate change driving factors (no nepalese whatever there...):

Barts wrote:I think it's "retaining heat" in the planet, as in "not letting it go away into space..

Barts wrote: I think you need to update your scientific knowledge, dude, there's been some advances since the middle ages.

IBdaMann wrote:

Barts wrote: Hmmm.. can you provide some support for your claims??

Sure. What needs to be supported? I hope you aren't asking me to prove a negative in an invalid attempt to shift your burden of proof.

What you said, with no support at all:
CO2 cannot cause warming.

The earth is likely cooling at this moment.

Regarding the earth likely cooling right now, the sun's magnetic field is weakening and the sun's output is decreasing. The best projections right now are that this decrease will continue for a couple of decades. Do you need an explanation as to why this will result in a cooling earth?

Barts wrote: It seems you're speaking against common scientific knowledge, so it would help your case to provide some kind of meaningful support..

I am citing the current scientific knowledge. You are confusing your tired religious dogma with science. You might want to fix that.

Barts wrote: I think I meant globally meaningful factors for climate change, that's quite clear from the context.

What's not clear is what constitutes a globally meaningful factor. Who determined that Nepalese tree mites were not? You? ...and why didn't this person rule out CO2? Whoever this "climate" factor judge is, he doesn't sound like he knows what he's doing.

Barts wrote: a source for you on climate change driving factors (no nepalese whatever there...):

<eye roll>
Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. If you cite it, your argument is summarily dismissed.
</eye roll>

You personally aren't vey good at science, are you? You personally cannot discuss science in your own words, can you?

Barts wrote:I think it's "retaining heat" in the planet, as in "not letting it go away into space..

If you'd learn some science, you might understand why no substance can do what you are describing.

This is where you summon your finest bulverism and pretend to tell me I need to learn science...

My science project was to determine whether elevated levels of CO2 gas in an enclosed environment had any effect on heat retention.

The experiment involved a plastic enclosure, heating source, thermometer and stop watch.
(...)
This very simple unsophisticated high school science experiment comparing the heat retention of two gaseous environments differing in CO2 levels showed that the temperature of the enclosure containing the increased gaseous CO2 took longer to equilibrate to room temperature than the enclosure filled with just air.

Barts wrote: I think you need to update your scientific knowledge, dude, there's been some advances since the middle ages.

You've pretty much been a loser in life, yes? Ask me how I can tell.


.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The CO2 in a bottle experiment is not correct because it perturbs air pressure.

This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide.

February 7, 1861

The Bakerian Lecture: On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction
John Tyndall
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London
Vol. 151 (1861), pp. 1-36
Published by: Royal Society

Barts wrote:
for historic purposes this is the first paper establishing the link between CO2 (Gases and Vapours, as in the language of the time) and heat retaining properties:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/108724

February 7, 1861

The Bakerian Lecture: On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction
John Tyndall
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London
Vol. 151 (1861), pp. 1-36
Published by: Royal Society

IBdaMann wrote:

Barts wrote:
for historic purposes this is the first paper establishing the link between CO2 (Gases and Vapours, as in the language of the time) and heat retaining properties:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/108724

February 7, 1861

The Bakerian Lecture: On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction
John Tyndall
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London
Vol. 151 (1861), pp. 1-36
Published by: Royal Society

That's the problem with being scientifically illiterate; you cannot discern whether you are being told the truth about the conclusions of any work, e.g. Tyndall's paper, and whether it is actually correct or has since been falsified.

Do you even know what you think you mean by a substance "retaining" heat? Have you even thought about it?

I'll give you a hint: a substance's temperature is what determines the rate at which it emits energy. This includes CO2. It is not the case that any substance has the magical superpower to regulate its thermal radiation according to some other mechanism, or to affect another substance's thermal radiation in any way.

Barts wrote:Nope, I can't see any problem with what I posted.

Barts wrote: I can see that you can't point out any problem with it.
[quote]
You're correct. I can't point out anything beyond the fact that it's physically impossible because it violates the laws of physics, specifically the 1st LoT and Planck's Law.

[quote]Barts wrote: It means what it says: it retains heat. What's causing you troubles in understanding so simple stuff like "meanings"?

IBdaMann wrote:

Barts wrote:Nope, I can't see any problem with what I posted.

I really don't think anyone is expecting you to see the problems in your own misunderstanding.

Barts wrote: I can see that you can't point out any problem with it.
[quote]
You're correct. I can't point out anything beyond the fact that it's physically impossible because it violates the laws of physics, specifically the 1st LoT and Planck's Law.

Don't think it does: I'd think such basic stuff like violation of basic physics laws and physical impossibilities would be caught up by the physicists studing this stuff.

[quote]Barts wrote: It means what it says: it retains heat. What's causing you troubles in understanding so simple stuff like "meanings"?

Your vague, nontechnical verbiage nonetheless runs counter to the formally specified relationships of science. Temperature governs thermal radiation. You are describing some other mechanism. What's correct? Planck's Law or your unclear, dogmatic regurgitations?

.

Barts wrote:Again, point out what's wrong: I just pointed out the heat retaining properties of gases

Barts wrote:and it's greenhouse consequential effect,

IBdaMann wrote:

Barts wrote:Again, point out what's wrong: I just pointed out the heat retaining properties of gases

You didn't point out anything. You gibbered something involving the word "retains" that apparently violates Planck's Law.

The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be in the absence of its atmosphere.[1][2] If a planet's atmosphere contains radiatively active gases (i.e., greenhouse gases) the atmosphere radiates energy in all directions. Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, warming it.

Barts wrote:and it's greenhouse consequential effect,

You certainly did not show how your violation of Planck's Law results in the creation of heat in violation of the 1st LoT.

If this weren't a religion with you, you wouldn't be such a science denier who flies into a death-struggle argument with the guy who is explaining the science to you just because the science runs counter to your beliefs.

Barts wrote:I can do better:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Barts wrote: Nowhere I could find anything saying Planck's law has anything to do with it.

IBdaMann wrote:

Barts wrote:I can do better:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Wikipedia. Dismissed.

Barts wrote: Nowhere I could find anything saying Planck's law has anything to do with it.

Oh well. That's because you think Wikipedia is an authoritative source.

Barts wrote:And yet you don't provide any source for your nonsense!! Not even a nutty blog!

IBdaMann wrote:

Barts wrote:And yet you don't provide any source for your nonsense!! Not even a nutty blog!

Nothing says "I am as dumb as a post" quite like demanding a source for science.


.

Barts wrote:In my view it's a pretty reasonable demand.

Barts wrote: You see, it prevents that people get away with just saying "it's science!" to justify their nonsensical opinions without saying where science says that.

IBdaMann wrote:

Barts wrote:In my view it's a pretty reasonable demand.

I understand that you believe it is entirely reasonable to demand proof that some science discussed is actually science because you personally have no other way to distinguish science from religion.

However, when science is being discussed, the body of science becomes axiomatic. That means that the body of science is assumed to be true and that it is incumbent upon anyone who disagrees with any stated assertion to support the disagreement. Science stated requires no support.

What that means is if I explain what Planck's Law says and how it applies,

you are welcome to look it up and verify for yourself, but I don't need to 'prove" that some other website somehow agrees with me.

Similarly if I perform a mathematical calculation for you right here in this thread, I don't need to provide a link to some website that has performed that same calculation. It would be incumbent on you to learn the math and indicate any errors.

If you cannot be bothered to learn that which you don't know then you need to accept whatever you are told, like you do now.

Barts wrote: You see, it prevents that people get away with just saying "it's science!" to justify their nonsensical opinions without saying where science says that.

But this is exactly what you believe. You read bogus technobabble websites, you don't know enough to call BS when appropriate so you just assume that if it's on the internet then it is true. If a living human tries to explain to you something that runs counter to your deeply held religious beliefs then you weasel every excuse to deny the science that is being directly explained to you.

So, you can quit with the demands for support. You have already demonstrated that you are stuck on your faith and that you don't want to take the red pill.

.

Barts wrote:
You need to provide something if you want to be taken seriously.

Barts wrote: I realize that that may not be your goal, and you just like to babble nonsense on the internet, but still, I'll demand you for your sources since the assumption is that it's not new stuff, or else you'd be bound to publish it (or at least your theory to be discovered by real scientists if it made any sense: except it doesn't).

Barts wrote: Another sentence that does not make any sense, dude..

IBdaMann wrote:

Barts wrote:
You need to provide something if you want to be taken seriously.

You need to stop denying science if you want to be taken seriously.

At the moment I'm not sure who would be taking you seriously at this point. Wait, I take that back. You and Ceist should get along very well. The two of you combined can waste vast amounts of bandwidth without contributing anything of value.

Barts wrote: I realize that that may not be your goal, and you just like to babble nonsense on the internet, but still, I'll demand you for your sources since the assumption is that it's not new stuff, or else you'd be bound to publish it (or at least your theory to be discovered by real scientists if it made any sense: except it doesn't).

Planck's Law. Max Planck himself is long since deceased. Go learn it and we'll talk.

I understand Planck's Law very well but unfortunately I cannot understand it for you. You have to go learn it.

Barts wrote: Another sentence that does not make any sense, dude..

I did use some multisyllabic words. My apologies.

.

Barts wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Planck's Law. Max Planck himself is long since deceased. Go learn it and we'll talk.

Him being deceased is irrelevant. What you're due to answer is why the hell would his law contradict the greenhouse effect.

Barts wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Barts wrote: The general theory is that extra-CO2 is the only factor that can account for such a warming.

CO2 cannot cause warming.

The earth is likely cooling at this moment.

Hmmm.. can you provide some support for your claims?? It seems you're speaking against common scientific knowledge, so it would help your case to provide some kind of meaningful support..

Barts wrote: All the other factors have been pretty stable in the last century, therefore they can't account for changing climate.

How were all factors considered? The entire countless list? Were Nepalese tree mites really considered? How was that achieved in anyone's lifetime?

I think I meant globally meaningful factors for climate change, that's quite clear from the context. Here, boy, a source for you on climate change driving factors (no nepalese whatever there...):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

Wiki
Factors that can shape climate are called climate forcings or "forcing mechanisms". These include processes such as variations in solar radiation, variations in the Earth's orbit, variations in the albedo or reflectivity of the continents and oceans, mountain-building and continental drift and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.

...and why hasn't anyone spoken up about CO2 not having the magical superpower to create energy?
.

I think it's "retaining heat" in the planet, as in "not letting it go away into space.. I think you need to update your scientific knowledge, dude, there's been some advances since the middle ages.

Barts wrote:
You haven't cited anything at all. Zero citations. Only baseless assertions, proven wrong, when properly analysed

IBdaMann wrote:
<eye roll>
Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. If you cite it, your argument is summarily dismissed.
</eye roll>

Yes, it is: its content is properly sourced. Which is much better than yours, whose authority is provided by yourself, a forum poster...

Barts wrote:

You personally aren't vey good at science, are you? You personally cannot discuss science in your own words, can you?

Barts wrote:

Barts wrote:I think it's "retaining heat" in the planet, as in "not letting it go away into space..

If you'd learn some science, you might understand why no substance can do what you are describing.

This is where you summon your finest bulverism and pretend to tell me I need to learn science...

Why not just explain why I'm wrong? I mean, you're the one with the outlandish claim, denying the heat retaining properties of CO2...

Barts wrote:
Here, I'll make my point: I'll just assume you're very young, and direct you to an age-appropriate experiment.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/4/11/1082675/-CO2-retains-heat-a-high-school-experiment

[quote]
My science project was to determine whether elevated levels of CO2 gas in an enclosed environment had any effect on heat retention.

The experiment involved a plastic enclosure, heating source, thermometer and stop watch.
(...)
This very simple unsophisticated high school science experiment comparing the heat retention of two gaseous environments differing in CO2 levels showed that the temperature of the enclosure containing the increased gaseous CO2 took longer to equilibrate to room temperature than the enclosure filled with just air.

Barts wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The CO2 in a bottle experiment is not correct because it perturbs air pressure.

That sentence does not make sense..

Either way, I quoted that high school experiment just because the assumption is that we should provide easy-to-understand-stuff to IB, due to the opinions he defended so far. If you want proper scientific papers regarding the subject CO2 heat retention, you can find them here:

https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide.

Barts wrote:
It means what it says: it retains heat. What's causing you troubles in understanding so simple stuff like "meanings"?

Barts wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Barts wrote:Again, point out what's wrong: I just pointed out the heat retaining properties of gases

You didn't point out anything. You gibbered something involving the word "retains" that apparently violates Planck's Law.

I pointed out this list of papers on the subject of the heat retaining properties of CO2

https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

I can do better:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be in the absence of its atmosphere.[1][2] If a planet's atmosphere contains radiatively active gases (i.e., greenhouse gases) the atmosphere radiates energy in all directions. Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, warming it.

Barts wrote:and it's greenhouse consequential effect,

You certainly did not show how your violation of Planck's Law results in the creation of heat in violation of the 1st LoT.

If this weren't a religion with you, you wouldn't be such a science denier who flies into a death-struggle argument with the guy who is explaining the science to you just because the science runs counter to your beliefs.

Nowhere I could find anything saying Planck's law has anything to do with it. I suggest you explain and provide sources for your theory: if you are able to disprove the whole scientific world in such basic (and important) matters, you shouldn't be shy!! Speak Up, Man!

Barts wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Barts wrote:And yet you don't provide any source for your nonsense!! Not even a nutty blog!

Nothing says "I am as dumb as a post" quite like demanding a source for science.


.

In my view it's a pretty reasonable demand. You see, it prevents that people get away with just saying "it's science!" to justify their nonsensical opinions without saying where science says that.

Barts wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Barts wrote:In my view it's a pretty reasonable demand.

I understand that you believe it is entirely reasonable to demand proof that some science discussed is actually science because you personally have no other way to distinguish science from religion.

However, when science is being discussed, the body of science becomes axiomatic. That means that the body of science is assumed to be true and that it is incumbent upon anyone who disagrees with any stated assertion to support the disagreement. Science stated requires no support.

What that means is if I explain what Planck's Law says and how it applies,

You haven't done that. And you've ignored the scientific evidence of what you're trying to disprove.

Barts wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Barts wrote:
You need to provide something if you want to be taken seriously.

You need to stop denying science if you want to be taken seriously.

Now you're just repeating what I say. Boy, you're unimaginative. And boring.

At the moment I'm not sure who would be taking you seriously at this point. Wait, I take that back. You and Ceist should get along very well. The two of you combined can waste vast amounts of bandwidth without contributing anything of value.

You're right about that. We're basically just repeating what is already known from science for 1 and a half century now. From my part I'm ok with it, sometimes I enjoy wasting my time with lunatics like you on the internet.

Barts wrote: I realize that that may not be your goal, and you just like to babble nonsense on the internet, but still, I'll demand you for your sources since the assumption is that it's not new stuff, or else you'd be bound to publish it (or at least your theory to be discovered by real scientists if it made any sense: except it doesn't).

Planck's Law. Max Planck himself is long since deceased. Go learn it and we'll talk.

Him being deceased is irrelevant. What you're due to answer is why the hell would his law contradict the greenhouse effect.

I understand Planck's Law very well but unfortunately I cannot understand it for you. You have to go learn it.

Barts wrote: Another sentence that does not make any sense, dude..

I did use some multisyllabic words. My apologies.

The problem was the lack of logic, boy. Words you can write, I acknowledge that.

.

!

jesus wrote:
hey people im not well educated but im here to tell you how to save the planet.. my name is scotty is there some place where this information can be put to use insted of just talking aboot it.. ?? not only do i know what causes climate change i can reverse it.. yes i said it.. i may not be able to spell vary well but i know a lot about gravity , honesty and being fat.. all key to this thoery.. please help