# Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024



## ScienceRocks (Apr 16, 2016)

*You skeptics and deniers often say why don't we warmers make predictions that are in the short term so we can be called out for them? Well, I am going to make a few and tie them in with the enso. I am making a assumption that the global temperature will be .05-.1c warmer based on the giss dataset then we were pre-2015-2016 nino. I will put my credibility on the line and I want a mod to pin this at the top of this forum for skeptics/deniers to rip me apart when I get it wrong! *

*When will I be wrong? *
1. IF we see a moderate nina year that turns out to be .56 or .58c...That is wrong. Rip me a part as a idiot!
2. If we see below .64c in a weak nina! Rip me apart as a idiot!

3. On the other hand it is a possibility that we may hit or break last years record in a neutral year so a high side prediction is wrong but it only proves a warming world!
-------------------------------------------------------
These are the ranges that the means should fall into. All data points GISS(Nasa)!

I will predict that Neutral years will avg near *.75c-.80c for 2017-2020 and .77 to .83c for 2021 to 2024*. The possibility is there that one could get over *.85c* during the later part of the period during a neutral year.

Weak ninas(-.5 to -.9c) could see global avg temperatures between* .69-.74c.* In comparison, 2005's .69 or 2014's global yearly temperature.

Moderate ninas(-1 to -1.4c) will probably see global avg yearly temperatures near* .66c +- .3c.* Probably warmer then 1998! 

Strong Nina's(-1.5c to -2.0) will probably see* .58 to .65c* depending on how strong. Likelyhood of a .5c yearly global temperature will only occur in a -1.8c or above nina.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 16, 2016)

Here's the deal....> If I am wrong at least 2 years of the next 8 years = I'll strongly consider the skeptical point of view.  I don't like being burned.


----------



## Vigilante (Apr 16, 2016)

I LIKE the HEAT here in NYC!..Think I'll go out, start up all the cars in the driveway and see if I can help it along! Perhaps have a can of BEANS later to see if I can also UP the methane count! Maybe even light up that Cuban cigar,that I'm now allowed to smoke!


----------



## TooTall (Apr 16, 2016)

Matthew said:


> *You skeptics and deniers often say why don't we warmers make predictions that are in the short term so we can be called out for them? Well, I am going to make a few and tie them in with the enso. I am making a assumption that the global temperature will be .05-.1c warmer based on the giss dataset then we were pre-2015-2016 nino. I will put my credibility on the line and I want a mod to pin this at the top of this forum for skeptics/deniers to rip me apart when I get it wrong! *
> 
> *When will I be wrong? *
> 1. IF we see a moderate nina year that turns out to be .56 or .58c...That is wrong. Rip me a part as a idiot!
> ...



Is this anything like the predictions that cities would be under water last year?


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 16, 2016)

Matthew said:


> *You skeptics and deniers often say why don't we warmers make predictions that are in the short term so we can be called out for them? Well, I am going to make a few and tie them in with the enso. I am making a assumption that the global temperature will be .05-.1c warmer based on the giss dataset then we were pre-2015-2016 nino. I will put my credibility on the line and I want a mod to pin this at the top of this forum for skeptics/deniers to rip me apart when I get it wrong! *
> 
> *When will I be wrong? *
> 1. IF we see a moderate nina year that turns out to be .56 or .58c...That is wrong. Rip me a part as a idiot!
> ...





lol.....nobody cares about your credibility s0n!!!

Do a little research about how accurate the models have been!!

You were posting up shit about Miami being under water by now......2 years ago.


fAiL s0n!!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 16, 2016)

skookerasbil said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > *You skeptics and deniers often say why don't we warmers make predictions that are in the short term so we can be called out for them? Well, I am going to make a few and tie them in with the enso. I am making a assumption that the global temperature will be .05-.1c warmer based on the giss dataset then we were pre-2015-2016 nino. I will put my credibility on the line and I want a mod to pin this at the top of this forum for skeptics/deniers to rip me apart when I get it wrong! *
> ...



No I didn't...I said maybe by 2100 but no way in hell did I ever post anything saying within the next 2 years.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 16, 2016)

After the beating all the people here predicting cooling have taken, you are not going to get any takers, Mathew. I will further go out on a limb. I predict that on the next El Nino we will set new records. 

Now, Coolers, make your predictions. Come on, fellows, anyone other than Silly Billy ready to go out on a limb?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 16, 2016)

Mr. Westwall, you were confidently predicting cooling six years ago, what say you now?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 17, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Mr. Westwall, you were confidently predicting cooling six years ago, what say you now?



He is right.. It has been cooling.  You all just adjusted and homogenized the cooling out of the record to keep your mem alive..

When we look at real, unaltered data YOU LOOSE.. already..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 17, 2016)

Matthew said:


> *You skeptics and deniers often say why don't we warmers make predictions that are in the short term so we can be called out for them? Well, I am going to make a few and tie them in with the enso. I am making a assumption that the global temperature will be .05-.1c warmer based on the giss dataset then we were pre-2015-2016 nino. I will put my credibility on the line and I want a mod to pin this at the top of this forum for skeptics/deniers to rip me apart when I get it wrong! *
> 
> *When will I be wrong? *
> 1. IF we see a moderate nina year that turns out to be .56 or .58c...That is wrong. Rip me a part as a idiot!
> ...



Given you have been basing your predictions on the IPCC worst case scenario models you will fail. 

Low solar output, ADO and PDO Cold with a La Niña on top of it..  The only way you could be right is if your masters continue to inflate and raise the temps by pencil whipping..


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 17, 2016)

Matthew said:


> *You skeptics and deniers often say why don't we warmers make predictions that are in the short term so we can be called out for them? Well, I am going to make a few and tie them in with the enso. I am making a assumption that the global temperature will be .05-.1c warmer based on the giss dataset then we were pre-2015-2016 nino. I will put my credibility on the line and I want a mod to pin this at the top of this forum for skeptics/deniers to rip me apart when I get it wrong! *
> 
> *When will I be wrong? *
> 1. IF we see a moderate nina year that turns out to be .56 or .58c...That is wrong. Rip me a part as a idiot!
> ...


Great news!  Most weather related deaths are from cold, this will save millions of lives.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 17, 2016)

Dr. William Gray just died. He was the hurricane guy who raved that global warming was a hoax.

Here's an example of his prediction skill, from 2006.

The Tempest

"It may warm another three, five, eight years, and then it will start to cool."

Has it cooled yet? No? Oh well. Just another failed denier cooling prediction. The usual.

The other interesting thing about that 2006 article is how Dr. Curry isn't insane. She correctly points out that a small amount of uncertainty isn't an excuse to do nothing, while today her boilerplate speech is about how uncertainty is an excuse for doing nothing. Her slide into conspiracy cuckooland started shortly after 2006.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 17, 2016)

Im laughing.........progressives spend their lives wanting to throw lots of $$ at trying to fix things!! There might be zero proof that any amount of $$ would fix it but they still want to spend lots of other peoples $$ to fix it. Its just the way these people are wired......they get hysterical about everything. 45 years and spending 3 trillion to "fix poverty".........hasn't done dick. Its gotten worse!! Now they want the world to spend 76 trillion for renewables when there isn't a shred of evidence that doing so will "fix" climate change.......which is all based on a pie in the sky guess that it is being caused only by CO2!!! Holy fuck..........you don't put these people in charge of anything, and fortunately for us, they aren't in charge of any of this.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 17, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Dr. William Gray just died. He was the hurricane guy who raved that global warming was a hoax.
> 
> Here's an example of his prediction skill, from 2006.
> 
> ...




Actually, If we look at the unadjusted data he is correct.. But your so into deception and lies that you will spout your drivel over and over again..

The only ones in cuckoo land are alarmists who spout lies and deceptions not expecting to be shown the frauds they are..


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 17, 2016)

I followed pretty closely the 1998 nino and what occurred the decade after it. 1998 seen about .63 and most years after it seen *.54-.69c* from 2000-2009.

I'd be shocked if we cool down to pre-nino levels this time! We've already seen .86c based on the giss dataset for 2015 and 2016 maybe around the same or slightly hotter.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 17, 2016)

Matthew said:


> I followed pretty closely the 1998 nino and what occurred the decade after it. 1998 seen about .63 and most years after it seen *.54-.69c* from 2000-2009.
> 
> I'd be shocked if we cool down to pre-nino levels this time! We've already seen .86c based on the giss dataset for 2015 and 2016 maybe around the same or slightly hotter.




giss.....NOAA.......NASA.........

You have to have a plate in your head to trust those sources. Rigging the data all the time just like the government data on the economy.

duh


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 17, 2016)




----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 18, 2016)

Matthew said:


>





s0n......this is from your signature >>>

*Say NO to small idiotic government and YES to accountable government!!*


HOLY FUCK...........talk about clueless. s0n....how do you even navigate in the real world?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 18, 2016)

skookerasbil said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


The subject is prediction of temperature for the next 7 and 1/2 years, not another posters politics.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 18, 2016)

Temperature "prediction" is a joke. It is not at all "science". 

Too, in any discussion of climate change, there is a direct correlation to politics.

Just sayin'..........


----------



## jc456 (Apr 18, 2016)

Mattie, Are you saying that you now understand CO2 affects on temperature? Wow, scientists don't even know this.  Dude, you must be a fkn genius.  Skooks and Frank, Good, we will now learn how warm 0 PPM of CO2 makes the globe?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 18, 2016)

skookerasbil said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...




I want a efficient government that invests in our own country like most of the rest of the western world. You're the one that lives 10,000 years ago and doesn't believe in civilization.  Clueless of the world and why America is powerful...Yes, you are...


Do you think we could warm to meet my predictions during the next 5-10 years?


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 18, 2016)

Matthew said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...




s0n....you're a deep matrix guy compelled to chase what is known as consensus reality. Your signature statement makes no sense. We have a huge idiotic government and zero accountability. Whats gonna change that s0n? This election?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 18, 2016)

Matthew said:


>


Take a good look at your anomaly graph.. Karl Et Al made adjustments of +0.4 degrees C on the trend in green but left the trend in blue and red on its original plot..   This is how the left does deception... if you place both on the same anomaly base line, this last year is cooler than the 97/98 event..

But keep on spinning..


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 18, 2016)

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 14 months are:

UAH V6 Global Temperature Update for Feb. 2016: +0.83 deg. C (new record) «  Roy Spencer, PhD

*Even Dr. Spencer says you are a liar, Silly Billy.*


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 18, 2016)

I added a black line for the means from 1980 to 2016...Remember this dataset is adjusted to be bias cool! But even this it is without question that we have been warming.





This ignores the volcano's, nino's, nina's and other short term crap.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Apr 18, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Here's the deal....> If I am wrong at least 2 years of the next 8 years = I'll strongly consider the skeptical point of view.  I don't like being burned.



  So the last 45 years weren't enough huh?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 18, 2016)

Herewegoagain....It is clear that the global temperature has been warming for the past 45 years!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 18, 2016)

This supports my conclusion...A 15 year smoothing means.

View attachment 71921


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 18, 2016)

Neutral for 2020 should easily get .76-.78c! The little thin purple line shows the trend is my friend.

My range for -1c to .5c at 3.4 is shown by black lines. Moderate nina's or nino's or stronger are shown in red or blue....


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 19, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 14 months are:
> 
> UAH V6 Global Temperature Update for Feb. 2016: +0.83 deg. C (new record) «  Roy Spencer, PhD
> 
> *Even Dr. Spencer says you are a liar, Silly Billy.*





Ahh......this is graph fuckery.......... run that black line from about 1997 and its almost as flat as a pancake. In fact, you couldn't find anything flatter if you tried!!


[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/pancake-breakfast-1204.jpg.html']
	
[/URL]


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 19, 2016)

Amazing how frequently these AGW folks come in here, post up stats or graphs and pwn themselves in the process!!


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Here's the deal....> If I am wrong at least 2 years of the next 8 years = I'll strongly consider the skeptical point of view.  I don't like being burned.



Review your comments going back to 2010 when you got here Matthew....you have already been being burned for years....and what sort of credibility do you think you still have....you are a first class passenger on the AGW crazy train...you have been onboard with every crazy prediction made since you got here.  Your credibility is zero and you have been burned so much there is little left but ash.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2016)

Matthew said:


> View attachment 71922 This supports my conclusion...A 15 year smoothing means.
> 
> View attachment 71921




Here matthew....refer to your graph...

Now, how about you explain why in 1989, NOAA stated clearly that they had observed a global temperature decline between the years of 1921 and 1979...and that decline is not evident in any of your modern graphs....what rational, scientifically valid explanation can you give for altering the record so heavily that the cooling trend NOAA detected then is no longer present in the record?

And in 1989 NOAA stated explicitly that most of the warming since 1881 happened before 1919. Now look at any of your graphs.... from 1989 back to 1881....do any of the modern graphs show that most of the warming up to that date (1989) happened prior to 1919? Explain why? What rational scientifically valid reason might there be for manipulating the data so heavily?.... You are a believer, lets hear your explanation.

I am working on a hypothesis here that you are nothing more than one of the army of useful idiots out there that climate pseudoscientists joke about.....I am going to go out on a limb here and make a prediction based on my hypothesis and predict that you do not give me a rational, scientifically valid reason for such heavy data manipulation and that you A) respond with a logical fallacy or B) ignore this question all together or C) toss out a third grade level insult and congratulate yourself for winning the point.






[/QUOTE]


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 19, 2016)

Mathew present the work of scientific agencies. You silly asses present cartoons and old newspaper articles. Bit of disparity there in the credibility of what is being presented.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 19, 2016)

Predictions are just that. No one can predict the future with 100% accuracy, unless they're as vague as possible.

My prediction is that unless we do something about this problem, in 50 years time it'll be a lot warmer.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Mathew present the work of scientific agencies. You silly asses present cartoons and old newspaper articles. Bit of disparity there in the credibility of what is being presented.


are those articles fake?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Mathew present the work of scientific agencies. You silly asses present cartoons and old newspaper articles. Bit of disparity there in the credibility of what is being presented.


BTW, the agencies already admitted they have messed with the data.  It's out there bubba.  WTF, where have you been?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 19, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Predictions are just that. No one can predict the future with 100% accuracy, unless they're as vague as possible.
> 
> My prediction is that unless we do something about this problem, in 50 years time it'll be a lot warmer.


wow, way to step out there bubba.  Hahahahahahahahahaha you probably won't be here in 50.  What value is that to anyone here?  I know I won't unless I live to be 110.  so predict something outside your lifetime and call it accurate.  hahahahaahahahahahahahahaha.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 19, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Mathew present the work of scientific agencies. You silly asses present cartoons and old newspaper articles. Bit of disparity there in the credibility of what is being presented.



Like I guessed...no answer....the spokesman from NOAA was making statements regarding their observations of the climate....the graphs being posted today bear no resemblance to what NOAA was saying about the year 1989 and the previous years....why?  Still waiting for a rational, scientifically valid reason....my bet is that none will be forthcoming.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 19, 2016)

We have none of the denialists stepping up to make a definate prediction. Very interesting considering that so many of you have previously stated that there is  an iminant cooling. I think that by 2024, we will have seen a very definate increase in the warming that we are seeing now.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Predictions are just that. No one can predict the future with 100% accuracy, unless they're as vague as possible.
> ...



Fine, let's do it your way. I predict in 3 months it'll be hotter than now. 

That's global warming dude......


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> We have none of the denialists stepping up to make a definate prediction. Very interesting considering that so many of you have previously stated that there is  an iminant cooling. I think that by 2024, we will have seen a very definate increase in the warming that we are seeing now.



We predict more of the same that has been happening since the beginning of the earth and we predict that it will all be within the boundaries of natural variability and we are batting 1000.....we are always 100% correct.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



You don't know it but you have really just described what passes for climate science.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No, I haven't. What I've just done is described what you want climate science to pass as. 

Rule number one, if you can't attack the facts, then attack the people who make the facts.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


you first have to have facts.  So post up some facts.  We've been waiting.  You all keep posting up that comment and fail to ever produce.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


hahahaahahahahaahahaha, no that would be summer.  wow, and I thought you thought you knew something.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> We have none of the denialists stepping up to make a definate prediction. Very interesting considering that so many of you have previously stated that there is  an iminant cooling. I think that by 2024, we will have seen a very definate increase in the warming that we are seeing now.


why do you think there is a need to predict?  What is it you have in mind to correct?  Please, I'm all eyes to see what it is that will solve your little climate problem.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



You have no facts....I have been asking for facts for decades and have yet to see them....show me one shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the claim that man is altering the global climate.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 20, 2016)

*March was the 11th straight record hot month*


----------



## jc456 (Apr 20, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *March was the 11th straight record hot month*


sure it was.  sure and yet you can't show where it was warm.

2012, yeppers indeed, it was 80 degrees in March that year in Chicago.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 20, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *March was the 11th straight record hot month*


 Ever notice on those maps how the hottest places on earth are invariably the places with the least instrumental coverage?  And while you might be wondering, do you wonder why that map shows warming in the continental US while the CRN network...a state of the art, triple redundant network so pristinely placed that it requires no adjustment says that the continental US has been steadily cooling for the past decade?  Is there any rational, scientifically valid reason to believe that if the adjustments that resulted in your map were extended to cover the face of the earth, the same cooling trend would be evident?...clearly the adjustments are wrong for the continental US...why would they not be equally wrong for the rest of the globe as the same sort of adjustments are used globally?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Then you post facts and then it turns into an exercise of ignoring the facts and saying all the facts are wrong. And around in a circle we go because you'll not accept ANYTHING that doesn't support your position.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You really aren't with it, are you?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 20, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



So what you're saying is you'll only accept 100% fact, and any fact I present you'll basically say it isn't fact.

You do realize we're not dealing with 100%s here. We can't say something for certain because there's always going to be interpretation of the facts.

So what you're demanding is something that you'll always be able to put doubt on, and therefore always reject. 

Fine, you can do that. You can be closed minded and try and ignore what is happening around us.






This is what we believe has happened with temperatures in the last 400,000 years. Every 100,000 years, more or less, we see a massive spike in temperatures. It starts from somewhere quite cold and then rises quickly and then drops equally quickly. Then after the drop temperatures rise again, but not as high as they did before. 

You can either go with this, saying it's the best evidence we have, or you can just reject it because you want to believe what you want to believe. 

What should be happening? Well according to this data we should be getting colder.

So any increase in temperatures is man made. 

Can I PROVE this? No I can't. You can't PROVE this in any way, shape or form. This isn't about proof. This is about looking at the evidence and trying to understand what should be happening. 

Are we seeing natural global cooling? Quite possibly, and along side that we have man made global warming, and then you get a slight rise in temperatures. Not a massive rise in temperatures.

What I can prove, however, is that the seas are changing. 

We know that the CO2 in the sea is rising






Ocean Acidification -- Pristine Seas -- National Geographic

"Scientists now know that about half of this anthropogenic, or man-made, CO2 has been absorbed over time by the oceans."

"But relatively new research is finding that the introduction of massive amounts of CO2 into the seas is altering water chemistry and affecting the life cycles of many marine organisms, particularly those at the lower end of the food chain."

So, basically many of the predictions of man made climate change may have been wrong because people didn't really understand where the CO2 was going. Half of it goes to the seas. Thereby reducing the impact of man made global warming by half. 

What does this mean? It means we could see the end of much sea life, and this could happen very soon. Coral reefs are dying. 

"Projections based on these numbers show that by the end of this century, continued emissions could reduce ocean pH by another 0.5 units. Shell-forming animals including corals, oysters, shrimp, lobster, many planktonic organisms, and even some fish species could be gravely affected."

The really important thing here is this:

"Equally worrisome is the fact that as the oceans continue to absorb more CO2, their capacity as a carbon storehouse could diminish. That means more of the carbon dioxide we emit will remain in the atmosphere, further aggravating global climate change."

We're pumping into the air, a lot goes into the seas, what happens if the seas can no longer take in the CO2, either because a lot of life has died, or because the sea is simply "full"? Well, then all we pump will come out as airborne CO2 and then we'll really see the effects of this. 

This is the problem, the main problem. Stopping something once it has gone past the point of no return. We know we're fucking the planet up, and yet we're not doing anything to stop it going over the edge.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 21, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> So what you're saying is you'll only accept 100% fact, and any fact I present you'll basically say it isn't fact.
> 
> You do realize we're not dealing with 100%s here. We can't say something for certain because there's always going to be interpretation of the facts.
> 
> .




The fanatical denialist did not arrive at their conclusions using facts.  *This is why facts have no effects on their opinions about Global warming...*

When the Hurricane center forecasts the movement of a Vortex in the atmosphere...they create a cone of probability as to the position of the storm in the future *they do not declare with total certainty "the storm will be at some particular location"..*.that is Science...different Hurricane forecasting Computer  models interpret the data differently so they vary in the forecast positions ... a consensus is reached via a "cone of probability" using the different models interpretation of data...


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 21, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > So what you're saying is you'll only accept 100% fact, and any fact I present you'll basically say it isn't fact.
> ...



Of course. People who are able to "justify" their views through a variety of tactics that allow them to never be "wrong".


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


well you need to understand what you consider to be a fact and ones that really are.  I can't help you there.  But the fact is you have no observed data that you can post up that supports any claim made by the warmers in here.  Zero, and I'm not the only one here making that statement to you or your warmer friends in here.  

Fact is something that is, not something predicted.  Please learn the difference and you'll be that much smarter in your life.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


so you are saying that summer isn't coming?  Ok willard.  Holy fk.  So what season is coming then?  It isn't climate season, it will be summer and wouldn't you fking know it, the temperature will go up.  holy fk!!

You all crack the living shit out of me.  so now we're not having seasons.  wow.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 21, 2016)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



"observed data" being what? I sense some trickery in this term already and I don't even know what you mean by it. 

So you're basically telling me you'll accept no evidence that goes against your "belief"? 

Well I guess from people who have been justifying their made up religious crap for 2,000 years, applying it to something that's fairly recent wouldn't be too hard.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 21, 2016)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No, it's not what I'm saying.

What I was saying first was that a prediction over a 50 year period would be what I said. You got annoyed that you wouldn't be around to see such a prediction, so I made a prediction that would have been easier for someone like you to accept. A very short term one. 

The point being that you'll believe what the hell you want to believe, and dismiss what the hell you want to dismiss, so I made something you couldn't dismiss, in the only way possible.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


so out of all that, the short summary is, you don't have the facts.  You have conclusions built off of hypothesis that have never ever been tested to support claims of doom and gloom.  Your side chooses words very carefully, but in the end they know no more than me.  no more.  For you to come on a message board and tell me I'm wrong, well is wrong.  You don't know if I am or not.  For now I know I'm right cause you can't prove me wrong.

Fact, the number of reporting stations don't cover the globe.  Just a flat out fact.

Fact-satellites are not showing the warm up that warmers say is happening-fact

Fact- ocean levels are within one foot of the level of one hundred years ago-fact

Fact- extreme weather events are down-fact

Fact- number of hurricanes are down not up- fact

fact- the earth has always had extreme weather events, always-fact

Finally, fact- you can't produce one piece of evidence to support man can change climate.  FACT


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


do you know what the word means?  Just asking cause you seem to be having an issue with it.

And by the way, what is it I've made up?  The only make up is the doom and gloom danger of CO2.  And that buddy boy is a warmer invention. And one still unproven.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


wow, now that is a rant and a half.

What I'll believe, well it is very simple, show me how evil CO2 is made by man.  I've been waiting and there has been zero posts with any observed man made CO2.  None.  I'm sorry, but that isn't a belief, that is just fact.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 21, 2016)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



No, the short summary is that you won't accept any facts, therefore debate is worthless. 

Fact, it doesn't matter if reporting stations don't cover the globe.

Fact, it doesn't matter if satellites aren't showing the warming up that some people say is happening. I'm not those people, you're debating with me, not them right now. 

Fact, it doesn't matter if ocean levels are within one foot of 100 years ago, one foot is still quite a rise.

Fact, we don't understand extreme weather patterns and the impact climate change has on them. 

Fact, I've not brought extreme weather into this debate. 

The short summary is, you're not debating with me. You're debating with who you think I am. You're debating with what you feel comfortable with. And you're willing to ignore what I say, then fight me on what I didn't say, then sit proudly saying that climate change isn't happening because you've somehow proved me wrong, when the reality is, you're fighting someone else.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 21, 2016)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Oh, I know what it means. I know what lots of words and phrases mean. That doesn't mean the person I'm talking to has the same idea in their head when they're using such a word. Do you understand this concept? I've dealt with enough far right groups to know that when they say something, they don't mean what most people would interpret it to mean. And in this case I've a feeling you might not be using the same meaning as I'm thinking, because you seem to like trickery.

The doom and gloom of CO2?

There is doom and gloom, and it's not made up. 

The PH levels of the seas are dropping. Half of all CO2 is taken up by the seas, and they're suffering for it. Coral is dying because of the change in CO2 levels, species are struggling and getting towards the point of extinction because the seas are changing so much. 

Now, the question I have is this. What happens if the seas die, and their ability to absorb CO2 goes from 50% of CO2 in the atmosphere to 0% of CO2 in the atmosphere? 

It's possible. It hasn't happened yet. It might never happen. However if it does happen, we go past the point of no return. Then what? What happens if we push the world past this point? Basically the answer is: we're fucked.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


The debate has been about climate facts.

That is everything to do with climate bubba.  Or don't you even know that?  Wow dude, what is your purpose here then?

fact- you've not brought in any facts for me to agree with.

Can you explain why one foot is evil in the ocean rise in 100 years?

And that the one foot rise is not across the globe.  Oops.

What is it that you do know?  You have attempted to share your ideas on what you think are facts and have failed.  Sorry about that bubba, not my fault.

I presented facts and you for the most part agree with them.  So again, predictions are just made up ideas.  Anyone can predict anything.  Big fking deal.  Predicting past your lifetime does zip for anyone in here.  Predicting summer is hardly a bold move. Face it, you have nothing to post that supports climate doom and gloom or change.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 21, 2016)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



How is CO2 made by man?

Do you know what happens when you burn coal? 

How much carbon dioxide is produced when different fuels are burned? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Pounds of CO2 emitted per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy for various fuels:

Coal (anthracite) 228.6
Coal (bituminous) 205.7
Coal (lignite) 215.4
Coal (subbituminous) 214.3
Diesel fuel and heating oil 161.3
Gasoline 157.2
Propane 139.0
Natural gas 117.0

So, there are some ways of pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. 

Go to China, see the impact of coal.

Beijing Air Pollution: Real-time PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI)

Here you can see a map of pollution is China, you can compare this with say, Japan, which is generally green, try and find a green place in China, I can find deep red which is severely polluted, most Chinese cities are badly polluted ALL THE TIME. 

Why is this? Because pollution is being pumped into the air, ALL THE TIME. It impacts people, the number of people with breathing problems is much higher than other countries in the west, for example. And there are countries which are worse than this.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


See there it is 'we're fucked'.  

And until I'm dead, I'll ask folks like you to explain it.  Explain how man made CO2 is dangerous.  YOU CAN'T.  It's not your fault, we all already know you can't.  The tests and observations don't support it.

It is what the debate is about f00l.

again, post up some observational data that shows the doom and gloom.  Hell, just show the observed man made CO2.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 21, 2016)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Again, you're fighting what you're comfortable with.

No, I haven't brought in many facts. Mainly because every time I do, I get ignored. I posted about CO2 in the oceans and I didn't get a single reply. I backed up everything I said, I got not a single reply. People will reply to the short crap messages, but not the long detailed ones, then complain that no one has posted anything.

But then again I posted in the next post details. So I'll see how you reply to that one.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 21, 2016)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Did you read what I wrote?

CO2 is causing the seas to die.

The seas take 50% of CO2.

If the seas stop taking CO2, then the greenhouse effect will be multiplied by two. The greenhouse effect is part of the reason why we can live on this planet, but it's like central heating, you don't want the heating on when it's 90 degrees outside.

Man made CO2 isn't any more dangerous than natural CO2. However there is so much natural CO2 in the atmosphere and there always has been. At times there's been more (when Humans weren't around) and at times less.
The problem is humans can survive within a certain climate level comfortably. Too hot and too cold and we begin to suffer, we can't live life as we'd like. Evidence would probably be Eskimos, they live, but they didn't become that advanced. Too hot, how many sea level countries close to the equator developed as fast as countries who were in reasonable climates? The deep south isn't as developed in most parts as the north of the US.

But then again humans have managed to develop heating and air conditioning. But what of the animals outside? What of the wildlife, the flora and fauna?

But again. The point I made before and the point you choose to ignore (and then demand answers), what happens if we go over the point of no return?

As for the data you want, I posted this, you ignored it. 

Shanghai Air Pollution: Real-time PM2.5 Air Quality Index (AQI)

You can see the PM2.5 and the PM 10 levels. Currently 190 in Shanghai. You can see 400, sometimes you can see 2,000. Over 50 is bad. 


http://aqicn.org/city/usa/washington/seattle/10th-and-weller/

This is for some place in Seattle. Just chose a random place in the US. PM2.5 levels at 49, Not a single place in the US appears to be at Shanghai levels. Why not? What is in the air? Where does this come from? It's man made. It's made made pollution that is being pumped out. 






A map of Europe, look at the places which are sparely inhabited. They're green, very little man made effects, very little pollution at all. Very few particles which are basically poisonous to humans.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


dude, that is called pollution and not climate.  See the information you provide is off kilter to the argument.  Pollution in China isn't the debate.

Climate is the debate. AGW is the debate.

And yes I know we, humans, add CO2 to the atmosphere.  Always, since we've been around.  It isn't unusual, and yet you're trying to make it unusual.  I've merely asked to prove how our CO2 is more evil than natural CO2. That is the argument.   

I've also asked for what the normal amount of CO2 is expected in the atmosphere, and that can't be proven.  And dude, you can post up all the fking info on that you want and there is no such thing. It's made up.  There is also no such thing as normal temperatures. Made up again.   if you choose to debate that, then just post your reason and supporting evidence.

Ice melts every year in the poles.  Every year.  It has since the ice formed.  it's seasonal.  Please feel free to prove me wrong. You can't.

do you reject that there are forests under glaciers?

You do know that Greenland loses glaciers every year and always has right?

Dude, I'm merely asking for facts that support that things happening are not normal and have been occurring longer than you and I have been on earth.

CO2 use to be in the thousands. FACT!!!!


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 21, 2016)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



This is ridiculous. 

You demand an answer. Someone tries to explain something complex to you, then you shout that this has nothing to do with it. 

I'm done. Unless you're going to actually debate instead of spend your whole time playing silly tricks, I'm going to stay done. 

You can go tell everyone that no one in the last 20 years has ever proven anything, but you won't tell them it's because you're just fucking around the whole time and won't listen to those people.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


yes, CO2 does go into the oceans, I don't argue that at all.  CO2 is heavier than the air. It's natural to be absorbed in the ocean.When is it released from the oceans, when it is cold or warm? You do know it is released right?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


well in fact that is correct, in the last 20 years no one has been able to prove that man made CO2 is bad.  there you go, you got one right!!!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 21, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


Well, again, pollution isn't the argument.  Your link says POLLUTION in it.  It's about climate and CO2 affects to weather.  Doom and gloom of hurricanes and tornadoes cause we drive cars and eat on barbeque grills. hell heat our homes when it is FKING Below Zero.

Is there pollution, you bet your ass there is.  I don't argue that all.  In fact, in an effort to reduce pollution, the geniuses of the planet invented what is called the catalytic convertor to reduce pollution.  however, these fking geniuses didn't know that it would add more CO2 to the air.  Did you know that?  Just wonder what it is you do know. So, summary is, in the attempt to cut pollution, we ended up adding more CO2 to the air.  You might say what the fk?  Me too.  Is that like a wow moment for ya?

And again, there is no evidence showing CO2 is causing seas to die.  It is just a scare tactic.  That's it.  When I ask for evidence, you won't find any.  It doesn't exist, and yet you'll post it's killing the sea.  But you have no way to prove that statement.  That's all.  Why can't you accept that.  you can't prove the sea is dying.  you just can't. Why do you try and argue that when you know you can't?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 21, 2016)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You missed the point. The CO2 going into the oceans is increasing massively and is killing the oceans. 

There is only so much CO2 the atmosphere and oceans can handle. Once it's gone past this point then the greenhouse effect is going to kick in massively.

You know CO2 causes the greenhouse effect right? This effect can be positive, it helps sustain life on Earth. However too much of anything is a bad thing.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 21, 2016)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Because you don't listen, perhaps.

You know CO2 is a greenhouse gas right? You know that the more you pump into the atmosphere, along with other greenhouse gases, the more of a greenhouse effect you have, right? 

Do you understand the greenhouse effect?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 21, 2016)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Do you know what pollution is? CO2, when produced by humans, is pollution. 

All pollution is, the definition of pollution, is:

The American Heritage Dictionary entry: pollution

"*1. *The act or process of polluting or the state of being polluted, especially the contamination of soil, water, or the atmosphere by the discharge of harmful substances.
*2. *Something that pollutes; a pollutant or a group of pollutantsollution in the air reduced the visibility near the airport."

CO2 pollutes the air, the more there is, the more we have something that isn't natural, something that isn't desired. 

Do you understand how CO2 affects the weather? 






Essentially CO2 and other greenhouse gases prevent solar radiation from leaving the Earth's surface, hence increasing the impact of solar radiation. 

H2O is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Did you know that? 
CO2 is the second most abundant.

The thing is, that the H2O in the atmosphere is NATURAL. A lot of CO2 is also natural. The Earth uses this and life as we know it now emerged living in that atmosphere. It's a good thing. The moon doesn't have life, and one of the reasons for it is that it doesn't have a greenhouse effect. It's the same distance from the sun (more or less) as the Earth, but gets rather cold. The temperatures go from -153 degrees to +107 degrees (Celsius). So, the Greenhouse effect helps to regulate temperatures. 

So how can CO2 be negative? 

Well, like many things, too much or too little is bad. You can get cancer from too little sunlight, you can get cancer from too much sunlight. There's a balance there which needs to be achieved in order to be healthy.

The Earth isn't much different. CO2 is a long lasting greenhouse gas. It can stay in the atmosphere for 30-95 years. Methane is 72 times stronger than CO2 as a greenhouse gas but only has a shelf life of about 12 years. N2O has a life of 114 years, and is 289 times stronger, but there's far less of this going into the atmosphere. 

CO2 is the big one because of how much humans are pumping into the air. CFCs which are 11,000 time stronger than CO2 have been phased out for being too dangerous, and for damaging the Ozone layer.

Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations

Here you can see the difference in levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



According to that hypothesis...a tropospheric hot spot should develop....instead we have seen more than two decades pass with statistically insignificant warming while CO2 continues a steady increase....when a prediction is made based on a hypothesis, and the prediction fails to happen, in real science, the hypothesis is scrapped, more research is done and a new hypothesis is put forward...why isn't the AGW hypothesis being scrapped?...could it be that climate science isn't really science at all?


----------



## Manonthestreet (Apr 23, 2016)

How many tipping points have we missed alrdy....doomed times ten yet they persist with new ones


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2016)

Manonthestreet said:


> How many tipping points have we missed alrdy....doomed times ten yet they persist with new ones



In real science, one failure to predict is enough to send a hypothesis to the scrap heap and initiate research into developing a different hypothesis....how many predictive failures can the AGW hypothesis claim now?...the string of failed predictions stretches back for decades.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 23, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *March was the 11th straight record hot month*


LOL...

by hundredths of a degree and PENCIL WHIPPED...OMG OMG OMG OMG were gonna burn...

You idiots are so hilarious.. Running in circles..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> > How many tipping points have we missed alrdy....doomed times ten yet they persist with new ones
> ...


If you include GCM's its well over 235 failures..


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Manonthestreet said:
> ...




What gets me is that the GCM's are the AGW hypothesis and the greenhouse hypothesis incarnate and they fail miserably...in the end they are going to admit that the "greenhouse" effect isn't and the earth is the temperature it is as a result of the actual physical laws.....not magic CO2.


----------



## elektra (Apr 23, 2016)

Mattpew has credibility?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 23, 2016)

*Credibility....in Action*
*https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...cop21/&usg=AFQjCNGA0zqpmX6Huy186Vu_xuTaLpBK8g*
*US joins 174 nations to sign hard-won climate pact*
*UNITED NATIONS -- At least 171 world leaders gathered Friday at the United Nations to sign a sweeping climate agreement negotiated last year and aimed at slowing global warming and helping poorer nations affected most by it.

The "Paris Agreement" was hammered out in Le Bourget, France, in December, at a summit of diplomats and leaders including U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who flew back from Saudi Arabia Thursday night in time to take part in Friday's signing ceremony.*


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Credibility....in Action*
> *US joins 174 nations to sign hard-won climate pact*
> *UNITED NATIONS -- At least 171 world leaders gathered Friday at the United Nations to sign a sweeping climate agreement negotiated last year and aimed at slowing global warming and helping poorer nations affected most by it.*
> 
> *The "Paris Agreement" was hammered out in Le Bourget, France, in December, at a summit of diplomats and leaders including U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who flew back from Saudi Arabia Thursday night in time to take part in Friday's signing ceremony.*



You think governments have credibility?  And by the way...the paris agreement is a great big bust.....like koyoto and the rest....lip service...nothing more.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> [
> 
> You think governments have credibility?  And by the way...the paris agreement is a great big bust.....like koyoto and the rest....lip service...nothing more.



Of course Government does not have credibility specially compared to you and the  other pseudonym anonymous posters ..of course LOL


----------



## Markle (Apr 23, 2016)

Matthew said:


> *You skeptics and deniers often say why don't we warmers make predictions that are in the short term so we can be called out for them? Well, I am going to make a few and tie them in with the enso. I am making a assumption that the global temperature will be .05-.1c warmer based on the giss dataset then we were pre-2015-2016 nino. I will put my credibility on the line and I want a mod to pin this at the top of this forum for skeptics/deniers to rip me apart when I get it wrong! *
> 
> *When will I be wrong? *
> 1. IF we see a moderate nina year that turns out to be .56 or .58c...That is wrong. Rip me a part as a idiot!
> ...



Rigghhhtttt.

Warmer's forecasts have been so incredibly "ACCURATE" over the past fifty years.

Are you telling us that after a nearly TWO DECADE..."PAUSE" in global warming, it suddenly is going to start to increase?

"Warmer's" have been so wrong, for so long, they even had to change the name of their massive, fraudulent movement from Global Warming, not happening, to Climate Change.  Since "Climate Change" has been happening for BILLIONS of years, who can deny that, right?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 23, 2016)

*Arctic Warms More Than 5°F in 15 Years, NOAA Says*





By Katherine Bagley


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 23, 2016)

Markle said:


> Are you telling us that after a nearly TWO DECADE..."PAUSE" in global warming, it suddenly is going to start to increase?


*No Pause in Global Warming - Scientific American*
*Study Finds No Pause in Global Warming - WSJ*
*Global warming 'pause' never happened, scientists say ..*

*Global warming 'hiatus' never happened, Stanford scientists ...*


----------



## Markle (Apr 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > *Credibility....in Action*
> ...





HereWeGoAgain said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the deal....> If I am wrong at least 2 years of the next 8 years = I'll strongly consider the skeptical point of view.  I don't like being burned.
> ...



What percentage of six billion years are 45 years?


----------



## Markle (Apr 23, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Predictions are just that. No one can predict the future with 100% accuracy, unless they're as vague as possible.
> 
> My prediction is that unless we do something about this problem, in 50 years time it'll be a lot warmer.



Given that previous forecasts have been SO wrong, what should WE do?  What is your definition of "WE"?  Also, what does a "LOT" mean?

Keep in mind that China, India, Africa, and South America will do NOTHING, ANYTHING we do will accomplish nothing, it cannot even be measurable.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Arctic Warms More Than 5°F in 15 Years, NOAA Says*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Says NOAA?  Kings of data manipulation.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Are you telling us that after a nearly TWO DECADE..."PAUSE" in global warming, it suddenly is going to start to increase?
> ...




What there has been no pause in is data manipulation..


----------



## Manonthestreet (Apr 23, 2016)




----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> *Global warming 'hiatus' never happened, Stanford scientists ...*
> What there has been no pause in is data manipulation..


Put up some data chump..,.lets see your data Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
*Exxon Knew About Global Warming More Than 30 Years Ago*


----------



## Markle (Apr 23, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



PLEASE show us from a reliable, independent source your allegations are indeed FACTUAL.

What do trees, bushes, grass produce at night?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Says NOAA?  Kings of data manipulation.



*and you are *? oh wait you are an anonymous asshole  posting your opinions backed by nothing..as though an asshole's opinion counts LOL


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 23, 2016)

Geo-engineering is the reason for the weather anomalies and this program is going on in all NATO countries.You can go to youtube and plug in "Chemtrails and Sweden" or any other country and you will see ordinary people posting videos of being sprayed. Some of these countries have done some really good documentaries with English sub-titles. This is real and this has been going on since 1997. This is a Department of Defense project thus it falls under the the catch all  of "National Security" and there is no oversight so they could be spraying us with anything and not just nano aluminum, strontium and barium that has been found in unsafe levels in the soil and water.


----------



## Markle (Apr 23, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



The majority of smog in Beijing is from the many factories.  China will not participate in any sort of global agreement which requires they reduce their CO2.  By the way, what do all plants need to live and what do they produce at night.

As you know too, China is building at least one highly sophisticated, clean burning coal power plants a week.  They also have more nuclear plants under construction and in the planning stage than all other countries combined.

China learned from us that in order for an economy to grown they need CHEAP AND PLENTIFUL energy.  Something Lame Duck President Obama promised to destroy.


----------



## westwall (Apr 23, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Mr. Westwall, you were confidently predicting cooling six years ago, what say you now?











I still do.  Local records worldwide show a slight decrease in temps.  It is only through the magic of "amalgamated data" that the computer programs magically create this warming you all are so worked up about.  I just had a foot of snow dropped on my house last night.  More than 30 degrees below average temperature for this time of year.

Do you hear me bleating about global cooling?  No, because I understand what "average temperature" means.


----------



## Markle (Apr 23, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> Geo-engineering is the reason for the weather anomalies and this program is going on in all NATO countries.You can go to youtube and plug in "Chemtrails and Sweden" or any other country and you will see ordinary people posting videos of being sprayed. Some of these countries have done some really good documentaries with English sub-titles. This is real and this has been going on since 1997. This is a Department of Defense project thus it falls under the the catch all  of "National Security" and there is no oversight so they could be spraying us with anything and not just nano aluminum, strontium and barium that has been found in unsafe levels in the soil and water.



You have quite a sense of humor!  Thanks for a good laugh.


----------



## Markle (Apr 23, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Why then have we not had any global warming in nearly 20 years?

If the "increased" CO2 causes global warming and is terrible.  How then was the earth so much warmer in the Middle Ages that the Vikings were able to build colonies on Greenland, raise crops and grow herds of animals to re-supply their ships on the way to North America?  Were there too many coal plants and SUV's causing all that excess warming?

Since there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING we can do to...reverse something we don't even know "should" be reduced...why should we spend TRILLIONS of dollars much better spent elsewhere?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> What should be happening? Well according to this data we should be getting colder.
> 
> So any increase in temperatures is man made.



The first thing I note in your graph is that the spikes are not uniform either in temperature or duration...so there is no credible way you can say that we should be cooling at this time...further, the timescale on your graph is so large that you can't begin to make 100 year observations...even 200 year observations regarding the climate...in short, that graph proves nothing other than that it has been considerably warmer in the past half a million years without the benefit of the internal combustion engine.

The rest is also just wild speculation based on no actual evidence at all.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > So what you're saying is you'll only accept 100% fact, and any fact I present you'll basically say it isn't fact.
> ...



We agree that the earth is warming...or cooling...where we disagree is the unsubstantiable claim that man is responsible.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 23, 2016)

Markle said:


> Why then have we not had any global warming in nearly 20 years?




You have data to back it up ?

LOL
The "pause" in warming myth: debunked

*Myth One: There has been a pause in global warming*

Nope, the Earth continues to warm strongly.NASA,NOAA, theIPCCand a long list of other trusted organisations have confirmed that yearly global average temperature continues to climb. 2013 marked the37thyear in a rowthat the yearly global temperature was hotter than average.13 of the hottest 14 yearshave occurred this century.





Source:interactive NOAA graph


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> We agree that the earth is warming...or cooling...where we disagree is the unsubstantiable claim that man is responsible.


*The 97% consensus on global warming*
*That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science.More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers*


----------



## westwall (Apr 23, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > We agree that the earth is warming...or cooling...where we disagree is the unsubstantiable claim that man is responsible.
> ...









Which, for the umpteenth time is a logical fallacy given that EVERY ONE of those societies derives funding from perpetuating the fraud.  It is not a legitimate argument.


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 23, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Why then have we not had any global warming in nearly 20 years?
> ...



 But yet we are getting 20 to 30 percent less sunlight reaching the planet than before...Google "Global dimming". Of course I don't trust anything that comes from the NOAA or the UN's IPCC at all.


----------



## Markle (Apr 23, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Credibility....in Action*
> *US joins 174 nations to sign hard-won climate pact
> UNITED NATIONS -- At least 171 world leaders gathered Friday at the United Nations to sign a sweeping climate agreement negotiated last year and aimed at slowing global warming and helping poorer nations affected most by it.
> 
> The "Paris Agreement" was hammered out in Le Bourget, France, in December, at a summit of diplomats and leaders including U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who flew back from Saudi Arabia Thursday night in time to take part in Friday's signing ceremony.*




Does childish screaming make your comments better?  Or do you just FEEL better?

There are 258 countries, territories and dependent areas.  What did the 171 agree mutually to do?  Who are the 87 countries who are not even a part of the "agreement"?

Exactly what has China and India agreed to do?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 23, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> But yet we are getting 20 to 30 percent less sunlight reaching the planet than before...Google "Global dimming". Of course I don't trust anything that comes from the NOAA or the UN's IPCC at all.


*No, the sun isn't going to save us from global warming ...*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 23, 2016)

Markle said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > *Credibility....in Action*
> ...


Like childish screaming "its a conspiracy of Scientist" pulling the wool over our eyes but never showing any proof of such a thing ?


----------



## westwall (Apr 23, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...











Throughout history it has been the frauds, charlatans, and criminals who have attempted to muzzle all talk and debate about the relevant subject.  Who is it that is trying to prosecute people for daring to question the scriptures?  oh...right.  It's you clowns.


----------



## Markle (Apr 23, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



Before what and what is your reliable, independent source and link?


----------



## Dale Smith (Apr 23, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



 Not trying to be a dick, but seriously, wake the fuck up. This plan to use an environmental crisis in order to gain more control over the people was thought of in 1967 that was stated in the Iron Mountain Report. A paper written by a think tank group. The Club of Rome, an offshoot of the U.N took that idea and ran with it by proposing the "Zero Growth" plan. Lots of stuff you don't know or understand. I really don't have the time to hold your hand and walk you through it because it would just be a waste of time.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 23, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > *Global warming 'hiatus' never happened, Stanford scientists ...*
> ...



Already did...you had no answer, but for you, I will put it up again...  Here is a modern temperature graph from NOAA produced in March 2016.....it supposedly shows rapid warming


n
	



Here is a news article from 1989 where the NOAA spokesman stated quite clearly that at that time 1989, most of the warming they had seed had happened prior to 1919...Now look at the modern graph....does it appear to you that any time between 1880 and 1919 is as warm or warmer than 1989?  Doesn't look that way to me...then he states that NOAA has observed a cooling period between 1921 and 1979...again, do you see any evidence of cooling between 1921 and 1979?  

The discrepancy between what NOAA said in 1989 and today and ever since the late 1990s is the result of data manipulation...a systematic cooling of the past in an effort to make the present look warmer and the warming more prominent than it has actually been.  I'll say again, when faced with an obvious and undeniable case of data manipulation in which temperatures from 50 to over 100 years  back have been changed for no scientifically valid reason, how can you place any trust whatsoever in the people who are doing it?







Here is a graph from 2013 just for fun....the differences between it and the one from 2016 are obvious, significant, and unexplainable in any rational, scientifically valid terms....the fact is that the temperature record has been so hopelessly corrupted in an effort to maintain the AGW narrative, I don't even know if the real historical record could ever be rebuilt...and I think that is precisely the goal.


----------



## Markle (Apr 23, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Arctic Warms More Than 5°F in 15 Years, NOAA Says*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Markle (Apr 23, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Why then have we not had any global warming in nearly 20 years?
> ...



Hmmmm...obviously you did not notice that there has been no increase in temperature the past 18+ years and your chart only goes to 2010.

But, thank you for the effort.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Apr 23, 2016)

Markle said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



  You some kind of retard?
Globull freezing/warming wasnt an issue until the seventies.
    Ignorant ass noob.....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 23, 2016)

westwall said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



They do love their logical fallacy and circular arguments dont they..


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 23, 2016)

Markle said:


> Hmmmm...obviously you did not notice that there has been no increase in temperature the past 18+ years and your chart only goes to 2010.
> 
> But, thank you for the effort.


*2015 is warmest year on record, NOAA and NASA say ...*
*as you see NOAA and NASA say 2015 was hottest in history...who is saying otherwise may I ask ?*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 23, 2016)

Markle said:


> Hmmmm...obviously you did not notice that there has been no increase in temperature the past 18+ years and your chart only goes to 2010.
> 
> But, thank you for the effort.


This record lasted One year


The year 2014 ranks as Earth's warmest since*1880*, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists. The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of*1998*, have now occurred since 2000.Jan 16, 2015
*NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record ...*
www.nasa.gov/.../nasa-determines-*2014*-*warmest*-*year*-in-modern-*re*...
NASA


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 23, 2016)

Bloomberg
*Published on Sep 1, 2015*
July 21 -- Global warming turns 120 next year... sort of. Next year will be the 120th anniversary of the first time we figured out that human activity could be causing climate change. Since then, the science has gotten firmer and the politics have gotten murkier, but the outlook for the future remains uncertain. This is the history of manmade global warming in three minutes


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The thing is, if we look at some charts, we should be seeing massive natural global cooling. Perhaps what we're seeing is natural global cooling along with man made global warming. 

But warming we are seeing. You might think it is insignificant, I'm not sure why you think it's insignificant, but hey.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




However look at the seas. The PH levels are going down, the CO2 levels are rising massive, and it just happens to coincide with humanity pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. 

Which part of what I've said do you disagree with?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 23, 2016)

Markle said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > *Arctic Warms More Than 5°F in 15 Years, NOAA Says*
> ...



Question is, is there MORE ice or less ice? It's possible to have less ice but over a wider area. In fact they've shown that this is what can happen, ice melts, then it is carried by the wind and then it freezes again, making it thinner but larger.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 23, 2016)

Dale Smith said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


link?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 23, 2016)

westwall said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


*What a liar you are, Mr. Westwall. *



NATURE | EDITORIAL


日本語要約
*Science subpoenaed*
Nature

465,

135–136

(13 May 2010)

doi:10.1038/465135b
Published online

12 May 2010

The University of Virginia should fight a witch-hunt by the state's attorney general.

Climate science is under scrutiny once again, this time over a modest half-a-million dollars — the collective sum of five federal and state grants being investigated by Kenneth Cuccinelli, a firebrand conservative who was elected late last year as attorney general of Virginia. The grants had multiple recipients, but the official target of the probe is Michael Mann, an internationally respected climate scientist who was an investigator on all five grants while working at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville between 1999 and 2005.

On 23 April, Cuccinelli filed what amounts to a subpoena ordering the University of Virginia to hand over, by 26 July, all available documents, computer code and data relating to Mann's research on the five grants. He also demanded all correspondence, including e-mails — from 1999 to the present — between Mann, now at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, and dozens of climate scientists worldwide, as well as some climate sceptics. The order stated that Cuccinelli was investigating Mann's possible violation of the 2002 Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act — although no evidence of wrongdoing was given to explain invoking the law, which is intended to prosecute individuals who make false claims in order to access government funds.

*Since when has anybody stating that AGW is a fact tried to prosecute someone for publishing a scientific paper?*


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 23, 2016)

westwall said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Ah yes, all the Scientific Societies in every nation, all the Academies of Science, and all the major Universities in the world are in on an international transcultural conspiracy. LOL. Mr. Westwall, you are truly a card.


----------



## elektra (Apr 24, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


All? your basis of a consensus is one man's opinion!


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmmm...obviously you did not notice that there has been no increase in temperature the past 18+ years and your chart only goes to 2010.
> ...



Known data fabricators and manipulators say this...how credible are they in your eyes?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> The thing is, if we look at some charts, we should be seeing massive natural global cooling. Perhaps what we're seeing is natural global cooling along with man made global warming.
> 
> But warming we are seeing. You might think it is insignificant, I'm not sure why you think it's insignificant, but hey.



It is insignificant because it is the result of data manipulation...when someone claims a shattering record by a hundredth of a degree after the data has been heavily massaged and manipulated, how much credibility can you really place in the claim?  Tell me what is the margin of error in the global mean temperature data base?....is it greater than a hundredth of a degree?....is it greater than half a degree?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



What do you suppose the Ph levels were just prior to the beginning of the present ice age when atmospheric CO2 levels were in excess of 1000ppm?...and how do you suppose CO2 levels got that high...and higher without the aid of internal combustion engines?  In fact, if you look at the history of the earth, the present 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2 represents an atmosphere that is positively starved for CO2....not massive CO2 levels at all.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Known data fabricators and manipulators say this...how credible are they in your eyes?



Are you under the delusion that your declarations are somehow more credible than NASA and NOAA ?
If you have data post it...If you have link to some Internationally respected agencies who says NASA and NOAA are data fabricators  posts the links...simply declaring "everything I disagree with is fake even though it comes from respected agencies " does not make it so. 

Grand accusations like that require Proof .....that you do not have ...or can have because its NOT REAL


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> It is insignificant because it is the result of data manipulation...


Can you provide some corroboration to your grand declaration that it is "data manipulation" you have links ?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



And for all that bluster, you can't produce a single bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical world in support of the A in AGW.  Since there is no actual debate ending evidence in existence, the only other thing that could create that sort of consensus is big old buckets full of money...nothing creates consensus faster than money...ask any lawyer.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Known data fabricators and manipulators say this...how credible are they in your eyes?
> ...



When actual evidence of the manipulation is out there for anyone to see....yes...in fact anyone who claims that they are credible when clear and undeniable evidence of data manipulation exists in the public sphere is nothing more than a political hack...

You can't even begin to give a rational scientifically valid reason for the data manipulation but you believe....not based on any scientific knowledge but upon your political leaning and nothing more.  You are apparently willing to ignore any and all data manipulation and evidence of it in order to maintain your politically motivated belief.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 24, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It is insignificant because it is the result of data manipulation...
> ...




Already gave them to you multiple times...ignoring them does not change the fact of their existence in the least.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 24, 2016)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Gee whiz, I was not aware that the membership of the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, and the Royal Society of Great Britain were all composed of just one man. Thank you for informing us all of this.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 24, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


Exactly. What is it you missed?

As I've stated before, Judith Curry stated so with the APS. If one then all, period fk!


----------



## elektra (Apr 24, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Gee whiz, I was not aware that the membership of the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, and the Royal Society of Great Britain were all composed of just one man. Thank you for informing us all of this.


We know you are not aware of much, but the claim is 97%, which does come from the opinion of one man.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*What the fuck are you talking about, you ignorant ass?*

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-levels-for-february-eclipsed-prehistoric-highs/

February is one of the first months since before months had names to boast carbon dioxide concentrations at 400 parts per million.* Such CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have likely not been seen since at least the end of the Oligocene 23 million years ago, an 11-million-year-long epoch of gradual climate cooling that most likely saw CO2 concentrations drop from more than 1,000 ppm. Those of us alive today breathe air never tasted by any of our ancestors in the entire _Homo _genus.

*You guys just flap your silly yaps, and never research anything that you claim. You are dead wrong, at the beginning of the last ice age, the CO2 levels were between 280 and 300 ppm. *


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 24, 2016)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Gee whiz, I was not aware that the membership of the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, and the Royal Society of Great Britain were all composed of just one man. Thank you for informing us all of this.
> ...


Silly ass, find us some Scientific Societies that state AGW is not a fact. How about a National Academy of Science, even of Outer Slobovia? Or a major University that states AGW is not a fact. Come on, boy, you can do it.


----------



## elektra (Apr 24, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Silly ass, find us some Scientific Societies that state AGW is not a fact. How about a National Academy of Science, even of Outer Slobovia? Or a major University that states AGW is not a fact. Come on, boy, you can do it.



The University of Michigan


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 24, 2016)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Silly ass, find us some Scientific Societies that state AGW is not a fact. How about a National Academy of Science, even of Outer Slobovia? Or a major University that states AGW is not a fact. Come on, boy, you can do it.
> ...


http://closup.umich.edu/files/ieep-nsee-2015-fall-climate-belief.pdf

Acceptance of Global Warming Among Americans Reaches Highest Level Since 2008

 a report from the National Surveys on Energy and Environment Number 25 |
 October 2015 Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy

 Introduction 

For the first time since 2008 at least 7 out of 10 Americans indicate that they believe there is solid evidence of global warming over the past four decades. This 70% belief level is the second highest mark in the history of the National Surveys on Energy and the Environment (NSEE) falling just short of the 72% record level reported in Fall 2008. This increased level of acceptance of evidence of global warming coincides with the lowest percentage of Americans expressing doubt in solid evidence of global warming in the history of the NSEE. The Fall 2015 survey shows that only 16% of adult Americans currently believe there is not solid evidence of global warming, a mark 1% lower than the previous record of 17% recorded in Fall 2008.

 Key Findings: 

1. More Americans than at any time since 2008 indicate that there is solid evidence of increasing temperatures on Earth with 70% of residents now maintaining that view. Similarly, a record low number of Americans (16%) say that there is not evidence of global warming.

 2. A majority of Republicans (56%) now believe that there is solid evidence of global warming, up from 47% a year ago, joining solid majorities of Democrats (79%) and Independents (69%). 

3. Americans who believe there is evidence of global warming are also increasingly confident in their belief, with a record 65% saying they are “very confident” in their appraisal.

 4. Severe drought across many parts of the United States has become the factor most cited by Americans as having a “very large” effect on their position that global warming is occurring. A record 61% of Americans who indicate there is evidence of global warming said severe droughts were having a very large effect on their belief. 

5. In previous NSEE surveys, large majorities of American who do not believe there is evidence of global warming have pointed to local weather observations as the basis for their position. In the Fall 2015 survey, however, more than a third (34%) of those doubtful of global warming said local weather observation has “no effect” on their views about climate change, the highest percentage in the history of the NSEE.

*From the University of Michigan.*


----------



## elektra (Apr 24, 2016)

Either way, it is a study of papers, an opinion of papers that states there is a consensus. Let us see the papers, all of them, let us read them, and let us read the papers that Cook rejected. 

Yep, there is consensus, as dictated, that you simply can not see, you must accept the dictate of Government as fact.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 24, 2016)

*National Surveys on Energy and Environment  | Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy*
*National Surveys on Energy and Environment*
*Summary*
The National Surveys on Energy and Environment (NSEE), a core activity in CLOSUP'sEnergy and Environmental Policy Initiative, reflects a formal partnership between theMuhlenberg Institute of Public Opinion at Muhlenberg College and the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy at the University of Michigan's Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. NSEE surveys include twice per year national opinion surveys on issues directly related to climate change, as well as other surveys conducted on a range of topics such as hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"), the Great Lakes, and wider issues of energy and environment.

NSEE is co-directed by professor Barry Rabe at the University of Michigan, and professorChristopher Borick at Muhlenberg College. For more information on the collaboration between the University of Michigan and Muhlenberg College, please see the recent article from Muhlenberg Magazine. For more information about the NSEE, contact CLOSUP staff at 734-647-4091 or closup@umich.edu.

*Funding and Financial Disclosure*
Funding for the NSEE surveys to-date has been provided by general revenues of the University of Michigan Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy, and the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion.

*Reports from the National Surveys on Energy and the Environment*
_American Attitudes about the Clean Power Plan and Policies for Compliance_


_Acceptance of Global Warming Rising for Americans of all Religious Beliefs_


_Acceptance of Global Warming Among Americans Reaches Highest Level Since 2008_


_Belief in Global Warming Among Americans Gradually Increases Following the Winter of 2015_


_Cap-and-Trade Support Linked to Revenue Use_


_Widespread Public Support for Renewable Energy Mandates Despite Proposed Rollbacks_


_Acceptance of Global Warming Among Americans Moderately Increases in Late 2014_


_Public Support for Regulation of Power Plant Emissions Under the Clean Power Plan_


_Public Opinion on Hydraulic Fracturing in the province of Quebec: A Comparison with Michigan and Pennsylvania_


_Public Perceptions of Shale Gas Extraction and Hydraulic Fracturing in New York and Pennsylvania_


_Public Views on a Carbon Tax Depend on the Proposed Use of Revenue_


_American Acceptance of Global Warming Retreats in Wake of Winter 2014_


_Public Opinion on Climate Change and Support for Various Policy Instruments in Canada and the US_

*My goodness, the U of M seems to be among those Universities whose policies state that AGW is real. Anything that you would like to add, Elektra?
*


----------



## elektra (Apr 24, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


You said a University that states the Universities position is that man has caused the World to warm. 

The study you linked to is a paper stating what people believe, not what the University's position is.

The study you linked to specifically states Global Warming, it does not state Man Made Global Warming.

What people believe does not establish fact, and the study you produced does not address AGW, nice try, Crock.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 24, 2016)

My goodness, Elektra, going to lie about your lies? Now that is doubling down on failure.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 24, 2016)

http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS05-20.pdf

Climate Change: Policy and Mitigation

 The Challenge 

Climate change is a global problem that will require global cooperation to address. The objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which virtually all nations, including the U.S., have ratified, is to stabilize greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations at a level that will not cause “dangerous anthropogenic (human-induced) interference with the climate system.”1 Due to the persistence of the increased concentrations of GHGs, significant emissions reductions must be achieved in coming decades to meet the UNFCCC objective. Unrestricted growth in global emissions is projected to lead to a 5% increase in CO2 concentration levels from 2011 to 2030 and between a 74-202% increase by 2100.2 Stabilizing CO2 at 450 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere by the year 2100 (which will likely keep temperature change below 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels) will require lowering global CO2 emissions in 2050 by 40-70% compared to 2010, and will require emissions levels near zero GtCO2 e in 2100.2 Stabilization at 500 ppm, almost double the pre-industrial concentration, could be achieved by holding GHG emissions constant for 50 years and then reducing emissions by two-thirds over the following 50 years.3 In 2013, U.S. GHG emissions were 6.7 GtCO2 e.4

*Elektra, time to admit to the lie.*


----------



## elektra (Apr 24, 2016)

So we can see, that according to a study, people's opinion is based on false facts, or incomplete information, like the supposed drought of 2014, what would the opinion be if the people knew that in 2014 the drought ridden areas of the west produced a record tonnage of grapes for wine? What would the opinion be if they knew California has a 80$ Billion dollar plan to "fix" the "drought"?


----------



## elektra (Apr 24, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> My goodness, Elektra, going to lie about your lies? Now that is doubling down on failure.


Lies, you stated AGW, not Global Warming, you produced a study of opinions, not facts or proof, of a professor, not the position of a University. 

Not as easy as PIE for you, Crock.


----------



## elektra (Apr 24, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS05-20.pdf
> 
> Climate Change: Policy and Mitigation
> 
> ...


Old Crock is God, and will control the Climate! It is dictated by the all powerful, United Nations, to save the World from the pesky Humans. All hail to the new Gods, all hail and obey.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 24, 2016)

LOL. Elektra once again has been shown to be a liar. Make really stupid statements, get your ass handed to you.


----------



## elektra (Apr 24, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Elektra once again has been shown to be a liar. Make really stupid statements, get your ass handed to you.


Old Crock is making a statement without addressing a post, without quoting, Old Crock, you are the liar, you proved much when you posted the wrong formula for Power and could not admit it was wrong. 

But, either way, the solution you propose to AGW, is the problem, manufacturing 1000 ton wind turbines, millions of them, produces billions of tons of CO2. The solution destroys the World, if we accept your false premise that CO2 increases the temperature of the Earth.

The only thing that will happen when you lower the levels of CO2 is plants will not produce as much food, plants will not grow as much. 

As it is, to build more Wind Turbines and to build more Solar panels, to build millions more forever, using coal and hydrocarbons, increases the level of CO2.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The Earth has changed. In the past CO2 was much higher. Then again it didn't have the current crop of animals on the planet for the most part. 

Co2 levels may very well have changed dramatically killing off everything in the seas, or it may well have changed over time allowing for evolution to take its time in changing those creatures and allowing them to adapt. 

However this isn't necessarily the point here. 

The point is that we are killing the seas. We're going somewhere where we don't know the consequences of our actions.

Now, the planet will probably survive. But will humans? Will CO2 levels rise to a point where the seas die, leading to CO2 and other greenhouse gases making the planet inhospitable to humans?

This is really the main point about what we're doing to the planet.


----------



## westwall (Apr 24, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...










CO2 can't do anything that is claimed.  It is NOT a pollutant.  It IS the fundamental building block of all life on this planet.  It is not a desired vitamin or amino acid it is absolutely necessary for life on this planet.  Anyone who claims it is a pollutant is a moron.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *What the fuck are you talking about, you ignorant ass?*
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-levels-for-february-eclipsed-prehistoric-highs/
> 
> ...



Sorry rocks...I keep forgetting that you are one of those poor dupes who believes that the earth has exited the ice age that began at the mid point of the tertiary period and continues today and will continue till such time as there is no ice at the poles....as you can see from the graph below, when the decent into the ice age that continues today began, atmospheric CO2 was at about 1000ppm...

Do yourself a quick google of the term "current ice age"  and read some of the 15,000 odd hits you get...learn something rocks...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Silly ass...provide some of...hell just provide one piece of actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered from out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable, real world that supports the A in AGW....the fact that you can't should seriously wonder for what reason the so called consensus exists...and ask your stupid self, what creates consensus more quickly than anything else in the absence of actual evidence...answer.....money.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 25, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> The Earth has changed. In the past CO2 was much higher. Then again it didn't have the current crop of animals on the planet for the most part.



And there you are wrong...Most animals we see today evolved during the later Mesozoic and through the Cenozoic....as you can see, CO2 concentrations were far higher than today...









frigidweirdo said:


> Co2 levels may very well have changed dramatically killing off everything in the seas, or it may well have changed over time allowing for evolution to take its time in changing those creatures and allowing them to adapt.



Fairy tales....look to see during which period most modern marine life evolved...you will find that they evolved at a time when CO2 was much higher....Atmospheric CO2 levels never killed anything....do you have any idea what the CO2 level is in the breath you exhale?  Learn something.




frigidweirdo said:


> The point is that we are killing the seas. We're going somewhere where we don't know the consequences of our actions.



True enough...but CO2 has nothing to do with it...we are killing the seas with pollution but real problems such as that will not be addressed so long as the AGW hoax continues to suck all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers.



frigidweirdo said:


> Now, the planet will probably survive. But will humans? Will CO2 levels rise to a point where the seas die, leading to CO2 and other greenhouse gases making the planet inhospitable to humans?



Now you are just talking out of your ass....if we burned every bit of fossil fuel on earth we could not raise the Ph levels enough to kill anything...hell daily variances in Ph are often huge....we can't kill the seas with our CO2....it is bullshit.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 25, 2016)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Silly ass, find us some Scientific Societies that state AGW is not a fact. How about a National Academy of Science, even of Outer Slobovia? Or a major University that states AGW is not a fact. Come on, boy, you can do it.
> ...



*University of Michigan Climate Change Research*
Earth's climate has experienced tremendous change throughout Earth history, from ice ages to greenhouse worlds, and *is currently undergoing unprecedented warming due to human activities. The Climate Change Research Group at the University of Michigan, led by Professor Chris Poulsen*, investigates these changes using both theoretical and observational methods in order to ultimately understand how climate dynamics, feedbacks, and variability.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *What the fuck are you talking about, you ignorant ass?*
> ...



Lordy, lordy, Cannot read a simple graph, eh. The current ice ages began about 2 million years ago. And the CO2 level was considerably less than 1000 ppm at that time. Since the Tertiary is roughly 65 millions years in length, two million years ago is hardly the midpoint.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > The Earth has changed. In the past CO2 was much higher. Then again it didn't have the current crop of animals on the planet for the most part.
> ...




Actually I'm not wrong. What you said is they EVOLVED, yes, some died out, like dinosaurs, latest thinking is the dinosaurs were dying out, and potentially because of the changing climate. Other animals would have thrived more, adapted a bit and many others would have disappeared. 

Fairy tales? Jeez, again, things adapted. However things can adapt through one and towards another and then die out. Nothing you have said or shown disproves anything. I'm not saying the will die out, I'm saying they could.

Also, what you're pointing to are natural changes, which yes, did kill off a lot of stuff, and other stuff evolved. 

My point is, would humans and other animals evolve or die out because of a sudden drastic change to the atmosphere or the seas? 

Yes, we're also killing the seas with other stuff, however CO2 is also killing the seas, and could potentially do it on its own if we continue to fill it with CO2.

As for you statement about raising PH levels. PROVE IT.


----------



## elektra (Apr 25, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Your link does not lead to the University of Michigan, it takes us to a .com? It is the private site of an individual.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 25, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > We agree that the earth is warming...or cooling...where we disagree is the unsubstantiable claim that man is responsible.
> ...



And when asked for even one shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable world that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis, none of you warmers seems to be able to provide it....if there is no actual evidence, upon what is that consensus based?  A non empirical evidenced based consensus?...what the hell good is that?  You know what makes consensus better than even evidence???.....money, that's what.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 25, 2016)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Gee whiz, I was not aware that the membership of the American Geophysical Union, the Geological Society of America, and the Royal Society of Great Britain were all composed of just one man. Thank you for informing us all of this.
> ...



He is a member in good standing of the union of Concerned Scientists...here is a relatively recent photo of another member in good standing of the union of concerned scientists reviewing some literature she received in the mail from that august organization...  Her name is Kenji..


----------



## SSDD (Apr 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



I am far more interested in finding some observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from out here in the real world that strongly suggests that AGW is fact...actual evidence trumps a bought and paid for consensus any day....and when asked for such evidence, none of you blow hard warmists with your endless claims of evidence could produce even the first bit of anything approaching actual evidence in support of the A in AGW.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



So rocks....in order to melt the ice at one or both poles, and effectively end the ice age, the average mean temperature would need to reach about 18C...when has that happened?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 25, 2016)

SSDD said:


> A non empirical evidenced based consensus?...what the hell good is that?  You know what makes consensus better than even evidence???.....money, that's what.


You and the crazy denialist have some gall asking for data ,...where is your data ...support your position..where is your data ...put up some links...you all make outlandish claims that every one in Science is corrupt...well where are your non corrupt scientist LOL...put up something instead of repeating your  OPINIONS over and over


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > A non empirical evidenced based consensus?...what the hell good is that?  You know what makes consensus better than even evidence???.....money, that's what.
> ...


that's funny dude.  Billy's been posting them, and you all claim they're inaccurate.  I think there have been many times the data sets have been posted.  Ian, SSDD.  You have seen them.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 25, 2016)

jc456 said:


> that's funny dude.  Billy's been posting them, and you all claim they're inaccurate.  I think there have been many times the data sets have been posted.  Ian, SSDD.  You have seen them.



you all simply repeat your mantras over and over "all  of science is corrupt" over and over ...one Crazy claimed that U of Michigan denies AGW ..as soon as someone posted that I destroyed it..post something anything..LOL


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > that's funny dude.  Billy's been posting them, and you all claim they're inaccurate.  I think there have been many times the data sets have been posted.  Ian, SSDD.  You have seen them.
> ...


What I do know is that no one has an experiment that can prove the temperature from 20 PPM of CO2.

And I know that if LWIR goes down, so do temperatures.  And yet you warmers all got warmest evah going on in the fruitcake.  And with decreased LWIR that is fking impossible.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 25, 2016)

like I said, you got nothing.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 25, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > A non empirical evidenced based consensus?...what the hell good is that?  You know what makes consensus better than even evidence???.....money, that's what.
> ...




My position is that there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical data in support of the A in AGW...the inability of all warmers everywhere supports my position...the fact that there is claimed consensus, and that the debate is over and that the science is settled when there exists no actual empirical data to support the claims of the consensus points a very suspicious finger at the consensus and their claims.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 25, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > that's funny dude.  Billy's been posting them, and you all claim they're inaccurate.  I think there have been many times the data sets have been posted.  Ian, SSDD.  You have seen them.
> ...



And the inability of the warmers to provide the requested data supporting the A in AGW lends creedence to the claim...


----------



## Markle (Apr 25, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > We agree that the earth is warming...or cooling...where we disagree is the unsubstantiable claim that man is responsible.
> ...



As you know, the 97% "consensus" thingy is totally bogus.  The website you cite's soul purpose is to destroy any and all DENIERS.  Don't let the facts confuse the Global Warming lovers.

*The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'*
*What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?*

By 
JOSEPH BAST And

ROY SPENCER
May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET
839 COMMENTS

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

[...]

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'


----------



## Markle (Apr 25, 2016)

westwall said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



PLEASE show us your legitimate, reliable source and link to large groups of people and legislators, trying to prosecute people who question the scriptures.  If you cannot...that would make you the clown.


----------



## Markle (Apr 25, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It is insignificant because it is the result of data manipulation...
> ...





TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It is insignificant because it is the result of data manipulation...
> ...



*As you know, Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University.  Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information.  The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever.  Data used by the United Nations IPCC and NASA findings came from EAU.*


*14th February, 2010*

*
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED! 

There has been no global warming since 1995 

Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
*
Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be. 


WHAT????


[…]

*Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.*


Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this worldwide scam.


Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports.  It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws.  In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like _Science _and _Nature_. 


We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative."  No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities.  But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken.  Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.


Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995


Read more: *Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 25, 2016)

Markle said:


> Read more: *Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995*



Global Warming
Fight Misinformation
*Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy*

The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.
*Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing*

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.


A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."
*Climatologist at centre of leaked email row dismisses conspiracy claims*
*The climatologist at the centre of the leaked emails row said today that he "absolutely" stands by his research and that any suggestion that the emails provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate or hide data that do not support the theory of man-made climate change was "complete rubbish".

Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit,*


----------



## Markle (Apr 25, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Please show me your source and link to a reliable source that CO2 is the only cause of changes in the ocean.  What do any and all green plants produce at night?


----------



## Markle (Apr 25, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Read more: *Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995*
> ...



WOW...investigations by...the group who was hoodwinked by the misinformation and which information would seriously damage their ability to get government grants.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 25, 2016)

Markle said:


> The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'


*A Wall Street Editorial is not Scientific *
*Scientists Just Confirmed The Scientific Consensus On Climate ...*
-Apr 13, *2016*
Almost 16 years after Harvard researcher Naomi Oreskes first documented an overwhelming _scientific consensus_ on _climate change_, ...

97% of _scientists_ believe _climate change_ is caused by humans _..._
The Independent-Apr 13, 2016

_Consensus_ Affirmed: Virtually All _Climate Scientists_ Agree Warming _..._
InsideClimate News-Apr 14, 2016

_Consensus_ confirmed: over 90% of _climate scientists_ believe we're _..._
The Conversation AU-Apr 14, 2016

For the 97 billionth time: Yes, there is a 97 percent _consensus_ on _..._
Grist-Apr 13, 2016


Shoot and a miss: Wall Street Journal op-ed attacks 97% climate consensus | Climate Science Watch

The Heartland Institute’s Joseph Bast and serially corrected Dr. Roy Spencer have a new opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal attacking the 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming. The bulk of their argument amounts to nitpicking over the meaning of words like “dangerous” and “catastrophic,” completely missing the point on what scientists are actually saying about climate change.

The evidence is solid: 97% of climate scientists agree that warming is real and human-caused. The scientists’ assessment of whether warming is dangerous or urgent is not covered in the 97% surveys, but the dangerous nature of warming is well-documented in other comprehensive sources.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 25, 2016)

Markle said:


> WOW...investigations by...the group who was hoodwinked by the misinformation and which information would seriously damage their ability to get government grants.




It was independently investigated investigated...none of the charges were supported 
*“The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review” [pdf]*


----------



## Markle (Apr 25, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Read more: *Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995*
> ...



Your sources are totally biased sites which can only exist by funds from the government and other donations.  All they support is Global Warming.  But, it is a cute try!


----------



## Markle (Apr 25, 2016)

*Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation *


Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.


By Christopher Booker

6:10PM GMT 28 Nov 2009

A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Read more: 

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 25, 2016)

Markle said:


> Your sources are totally biased sites which can only exist by funds from the government and other donations.  All they support is Global Warming.  But, it is a cute try!


 Your sources are WSJ editorial and discredited Scientist one of which [Spencer in Alabama] also denies the theory of Evolution 
*Dr. Roy Spencer, Please Keep Your Religion Out Of Science*
*Not everyone might be aware of this but Dr. Roy Spencer is someone who believes in Intelligent Design. He has often defended his support of Intelligent Design and his rejection of the Theory of Evolution quite vocally. Something I mentioned briefly in one of my blog posts.

That Spencer rejects the Theory of Evolution and replaces it with Intelligent Design brings into question his ability to assess evidence in a detached way. 
*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 25, 2016)

Markle said:


> Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation



That article you link to is from 2009 about 7 years ago.  I already posted numerous links debunking the "Climategate" Lol scandal
here is more OK...there are links throughout the post OK
*Debunked Conspiracy Climategate Five Years Later ...*
I am a little reluctant to remind everyone about the so-called “Climategate”incident that was sparked this day five years ago.

Many people, in the end, were* embarrassed by this major attack on climate change scientists when it turned out to be nothing more than manufactured media hype*. *Nine independent inquiries *by multiple agencies all arrived at the same conclusion that the *Climategate conspiracy was nonsense**. *


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 25, 2016)

Markle said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I didn't say that CO2 is the only cause of change in the oceans.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 26, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Pollution, run off etc is the only danger to the oceans....there is not enough fossil fuel on earth to raise the PH level of the oceans to dangerous levels...the ocean is buffered to heavily...read a bit about it and give up your alarmist handwringing...do your part to end the AGW scam so that we can finally turn to the real environmental problems facing our planet....polution...poor land use....etc.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



You've made a claim, but will you back it up?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 26, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


what is it you expect back up on?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 26, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> You've made a claim, but will you back it up?



Sure...it's basic chemistry.....refer to Henry's Law.  Henry's law says that the solubility of a gas in a liquid depends on temperature, the partial pressure of the gas over the liquid, the nature of the solvent and the nature of the gas...if atmospheric temperatures increase, then the resulting warmer oceans will outgas more CO2 than they take up which will make the oceans more basic, not more acidic.

It's like this...either the oceans are getting warmer due to atmospheric warming in which case, the CO2 concentration in sea water is decreasing  and therefore acidification from manmade CO2 is just more alarmist gibberish, or the oceans are cooling and absorbing manmade CO2 causing an insignificant amount of acidification which means that the increased CO2 level in the atmosphere is not causing warming, and not causing sea level rise....

so take your pick...you can't have both...warmer oceans due to CO2 induced warming which results in less acidic oceans or cooler oceans in spite of more atmospheric CO2 which results in slightly more acidic oceans but puts the lie to the claim of warming due to more atmospheric CO2...


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


My goodness, SSDD, you do enjoy playing the complete idiot. Melt enough ice to raise the sea level three feet, and most of the seaports in the world are in major trouble. With just on increase of 20 ppm over the normal 280, during the eemian period, about 130,000 years ago, the sea level was at least 20 feet higher than today. We have not even began to see the results of the present 400+ ppm in the atmosphere today. But that same inertia in the system means that when we do see it, we will be seeing it for a long time.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 26, 2016)

Markle said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Please show me a reliable link that any scientist has stated that CO2 is the only cause of changes in the ocean. Have you quit beating your wife yet? 

Don't play stupid games, Markle, you are not smart enough to win. Just keep repeating mindless drivel like the rest of the denialists here, and you will be ok.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > You've made a claim, but will you back it up?
> ...


*As per normal, you don't have a fucking clue as to what you are talking about.

 http://dx.doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2009.95
DOI
10.5670/oceanog.2009.95
The uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the global ocean induces fundamental changes in seawater chemistry that could have dramatic impacts on biological ecosystems in the upper ocean. Estimates based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) business-as-usual emission scenarios suggest that atmospheric CO2 levels could approach 800 ppm near the end of the century. Corresponding biogeochemical models for the ocean indicate that surface water pH will drop from a pre-industrial value of about 8.2 to about 7.8 in the IPCC A2 scenario by the end of this century, increasing the ocean’s acidity by about 150% relative to the beginning of the industrial era. In contemporary ocean water, elevated CO2 will also cause substantial reductions in surface water carbonate ion concentrations, in terms of either absolute changes or fractional changes relative to pre-industrial levels. For most open-ocean surface waters, aragonite undersaturation occurs when carbonate ion concentrations drop below approximately 66 μmol kg-1. The model projections indicate that aragonite undersaturation will start to occur by about 2020 in the Arctic Ocean and 2050 in the Southern Ocean. By 2050, all of the Arctic will be undersaturated with respect to aragonite, and by 2095, all of the Southern Ocean and parts of the North Pacific will be undersaturated. For calcite, undersaturation occurs when carbonate ion concentration drops below 42 μmol kg-1. By 2095, most of the Arctic and some parts of the Bering and Chukchi seas will be undersaturated with respect to calcite. However, in most of the other ocean basins, the surface waters will still be saturated with respect to calcite, but at a level greatly reduced from the present.
*


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 26, 2016)

*Near-future level of CO2-driven ocean acidification radically affects larval survival and development in the brittlestar Ophiothrix fragilis*





 Tools


Dupont, Sam; Havenhand, Jon; Thorndyke, William; Peck, Lloyd S.; Thorndyke, Michael. 2008 Near-future level of CO2-driven ocean acidification radically affects larval survival and development in the brittlestar Ophiothrix fragilis. _Marine Ecology Progress Series_, 373. 285-294. 10.3354/meps07800



Before downloading, please read NORA policies.


 Text 
m373p285.pdf - Published Version 
Download (847kB)




Official URL: http://www.int-res.com/articles/theme/m373p285.pdf
*Abstract/Summary*
The world's oceans are slowly becoming more acidic. In the last 150 yr, the pH of the oceans has dropped by similar to 0.1 units, which is equivalent to a 25 % increase in acidity. Modelling predicts the pH of the oceans to fall by 0.2 to 0.4 units by the year 2100. These changes will have significant effects on marine organisms, especially those with calcareous skeletons such as echinoderms. Little is known about the possible long-term impact of predicted pH changes on marine invertebrate larval development. Here we predict the consequences of increased CO2 (corresponding to pH drops of 0.2 and 0.4 units) on the larval development of the brittlestar Ophiothrix fragilis, which is a keystone species occurring in high densities and stable populations throughout the shelf seas of northwestern Europe (eastern Atlantic). Acidification by 0.2 units induced 100 % larval mortality within 8 d while control larvae showed 70 % survival over the same period. Exposure to low pH also resulted in a temporal decrease in larval size as well as abnormal development and skeletogenesis (abnormalities, asymmetry, altered skeletal proportions). If oceans continue to acidify as expected, ecosystems of the Atlantic dominated by this keystone species will be seriously threatened with major changes in many key benthic and pelagic ecosystems. Thus, it may be useful to monitor O. fragilis populations and initiate conservation if needed.

*SSDD, maybe you should actually research some science before posting nonsense. You actually think that you know more than these scientists?*


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 26, 2016)

*Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms : Abstract : Nature*

*Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms*
James C. Orr1, Victoria J. Fabry2, Olivier Aumont3, Laurent Bopp1, Scott C. Doney4, Richard A. Feely5, Anand Gnanadesikan6, Nicolas Gruber7, Akio Ishida8, Fortunat Joos9, Robert M. Key10, Keith Lindsay11, Ernst Maier-Reimer12, Richard Matear13, Patrick Monfray1,19, Anne Mouchet14, Raymond G. Najjar15, Gian-Kasper Plattner7,9, Keith B. Rodgers1,16,19, Christopher L. Sabine5, Jorge L. Sarmiento10, Reiner Schlitzer17, Richard D. Slater10, Ian J. Totterdell18,19, Marie-France Weirig17, Yasuhiro Yamanaka8 & Andrew Yool18

Today's surface ocean is saturated with respect to calcium carbonate, but increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are reducing ocean pH and carbonate ion concentrations, and thus the level of calcium carbonate saturation. Experimental evidence suggests that if these trends continue, key marine organisms—such as corals and some plankton—will have difficulty maintaining their external calcium carbonate skeletons. Here we use 13 models of the ocean–carbon cycle to assess calcium carbonate saturation under the IS92a 'business-as-usual' scenario for future emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. In our projections, Southern Ocean surface waters will begin to become undersaturated with respect to aragonite, a metastable form of calcium carbonate, by the year 2050. By 2100, this undersaturation could extend throughout the entire Southern Ocean and into the subarctic Pacific Ocean. When live pteropods were exposed to our predicted level of undersaturation during a two-day shipboard experiment, their aragonite shells showed notable dissolution. Our findings indicate that conditions detrimental to high-latitude ecosystems could develop within decades, not centuries as suggested previously.

*Many, many more articles, not one of which supports your silly hypothesis.*


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 26, 2016)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



How about 1) there aren't enough fossil fuels on the Earth to raise PH levels to dangerous levels. 
2) Prove what are dangerous levels of PH in seas. 


You know, the claims that were made.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > You've made a claim, but will you back it up?
> ...



OKay, you've just made more claims rather than backing up the previous ones.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



So you have nothing but more alarmist claptrap...OK...not like I expected anything else....the fact remains that it has been a very long time science there was no ice at one, or both of the poles which means that the ice age the earth is presently clawing its way out of goes on.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




Good old rocks...you have a failing model, or a prediction based on a failing model for every occasion, don't you...Your link is chock full of could, estimates, suggestions, models, indications based on models, and on and on...Once again, no actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW.....just more models and baseless predictions founded upon them.  Good job....not.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *Near-future level of CO2-driven ocean acidification radically affects larval survival and development in the brittlestar Ophiothrix fragilis*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And more baseless predictions based on yet more failing models.  Tell me rocks...do you deny Henry's law?....Do you believe that the oceans were less "acidic" during the colder periods of time when the oceans held more CO2 before the outgassing due to warmer water?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *Many, many more articles, not one of which supports your silly hypothesis.*



And yet more models...denying a law of nature...Henry's law rocks....learn it...interesting that you deny that the oceans held more CO2 and were therefore more acidic during cold periods....and instead claim that they are becoming more acidic as they outgas due to the water being warmer..


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



What do you suppose the Ph levels of the oceans were when atmospheric CO2 levels were 1000ppm....2000ppm.....3000, ppm....5000ppm....

Look guy, the fact is that at past, normal rates of absorption, even if we burned all the fossil fuels on earth the atmospheric CO2 levels would not double...for all our activity, we produce only 3% of the total atmospheric CO2...We know from the past that CO2 gets absorbed into damned near everything from limestone reefs, to rocks and soil, to living plants and animals...limestone for example is common across the globe and it is damned near 45% CO2....When the oceans run out of limestone rocks on its floor, then we may have something to worry about....let me know when that happens...

The hard fact is that cold water holds more CO2 than warm water so the oceans become less acidic as temperatures warm...there is no getting around that fact...like it or not.

And by the way goober, the correct term for changing the Ph of the oceans by dissolving CO2 is neutralization...not acidification...acidification is an alarmist buzzword used to create anxiety....


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Yeah...what's a natural law to a believer...I see you didn't look up Henry's law and remain blissfully ignorant....the fact that you didn't doesn't alter the fact that colder water holds more CO2...

Here, try an experiment for yourself...careful though, this is actual science...science where you do something and then observed the results and apply those results to the real world...think you can handle a bit of truth?

Get yourself a couple of bottles of club soda...or coke, it really doesn't matter...put one in the refrigerator overnight and leave the other out on the counter...next morning, open them both....put the cold one back in the refrigerator and leave the warm one out on the counter...go to work...or the welfare line, or your purveyor of porn...whatever you do with your days....when you come home in the evening, pour yourself a glass of the club soda on the counter...note the lack of bubbles and the flat taste....now do the same with the bottle you left in the refrigerator....while it won't be as bubbly as a freshly opened bottle because of the pressure in the bottle, you will find that it is quite a bit more bubbly than the bottle left on the counter...take a taste and you will see that it is not nearly as flat as the bottle left on the counter....

If you have access to a Ph testing kit.. you might test the Ph of the freshly opened bottles and note them down...you will note that the Ph of the colder bottle is lower than the warmer bottle...this is because the cold liquid holds more CO2 than the warm liquid...now you could play with the air pressure above the liquid and get different results but this experiment should show you that cold water holds more CO2 than warm water...now apply what you have observed with your own eyes to the world's oceans...they behave just like the water in that bottle of club soda.....when they warm, they outgas CO2...when they are cold, they retain CO2....

If you have any brain at all, and even the smallest bit of critical thinking skills, you should be able to draw a reasonably accurate conclusion from your little experiment....do you believe the oceans are more acidic during cold periods when they are up taking CO2 and outgassing very little or do you believe they are more acidic during warm periods when they are outgassing at a far more rapid rate than they are up taking CO2?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



It must be great when you go into a debate and you know what you're going to say to any evidence presented. You just say it's a model that doesn't work based on evident that isn't good. Then you feel like you can't lose.

The problem happens when things go wrong, I mean, like the world goes wrong, then what?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The point was, I asked you to back something up, and then you went off on one without backing up what I asked you to back up. 

I am supposed to just accept it when you go off on a 90 degree tangent?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Here is a clue frigid....output from failing models is not evidence of anything other than that the models are failing....I have asked repeatedly for decades now for some actual observed, measured,  quantified evidence in support of the claims you goobers make based on models and none has been forthcoming...I just started a thread precisely for that point a few days ago and as predicted, there has been no actual measured, quantified evidence in support of the claim that man is altering the climate posted...just as rocks' paper isn't evidence...it is a prediction based on a model that has failed...nothing like the claims it makes are being observed in nature, but he posts it anyway...i suppose to fool people like you and keep them in their seat on the AGW crazy train.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



I did...in fact, what I gave you was better than any amount of data...I gave you a simple experiment that would allow you to see the truth for yourself of what I am saying...what's the matter, afraid of a couple of bottles of club soda and what cooling one and leaving the other out on the counter will do to your faith....go ahead and do it...actual observation...seeing for yourself that the oceans were more acidic during colder times....seeing for your self that the claims of a warming planet will acidify the oceans is simply alarmist bullshit that even the most simple observation based experiment can debunk...what's the matter guy......afraid?

Your belief is that more CO2 will result in a warming world...well the fact is that a warmer world would result in warmer oceans and warmer oceans hold less CO2 than cold oceans....the more the water warms, the less CO2 it can hold.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Yeah...what's a natural law to a believer...I see you didn't look up Henry's law and remain blissfully ignorant....the fact that you didn't doesn't alter the fact that colder water holds more CO2...
> 
> Here, try an experiment for yourself...careful though, this is actual science...science where you do something and then observed the results and apply those results to the real world...think you can handle a bit of truth?
> 
> ...



Fine you want to talk about Henry's law. 

Okay, back to your previous post. 

You say the warmer oceans get the more CO2 they'll give off. So am I taking it what you've said is the warmer the oceans the less ability the oceans have of holding CO2?

Therefore the warmer the planet, the less effective the oceans are at dealing with man made CO2, which means that there'll be more CO2 in the atmosphere, increasing the warming, decreasing again the ability of the seas to take in CO2?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The point I'm making is this.

There are models based on the information that is available and based on a few other things like predictions. And there is also what is happening. 
The two might not be the same, in fact our ability to predict the future isn't that good. You only really need look at the weather forecast and see how often they get it wrong. 

Does that mean we don't bother with the weather forecast? No, it doesn't. In fact many people actually rely on the weather forecast, even if it is sometimes wrong. 

All you do is sit back and make the same claims "I have asked repeatedly for decades now for some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence..." but then when people present this you dismiss it straight away and then go on and repeat the same sentence over and over as if you're some brainiac for doing so. 

It's ridiculous. It doesn't change what is actually happening.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



No, what you did is go off on a tangent. You think it's better than what I asked for, I think you went off on a tangent. 

But I've given you the chance to show me that I'm wrong thinking you're going off on a tangent, from the post after the one you replied to. We'll see.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Fine you want to talk about Henry's law.
> 
> Okay, back to your previous post.
> 
> ...



So you admit that the ocean acidification claim is nonsense?  I ask because these false beliefs you have must be taken on one at a time...  You accept that the observable facts show that the oceans were more acidic when the earth was colder and that warming does not put the life in the oceans in danger of dying in an acid bath.  You accept that fact and renounce your belief in ocean acidification due to global warming?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> The point I'm making is this.
> 
> There are models based on the information that is available and based on a few other things like predictions. And there is also what is happening.
> The two might not be the same, in fact our ability to predict the future isn't that good. You only really need look at the weather forecast and see how often they get it wrong.



The point I am making is that the predictions of the models don't reflect what we see in the real world...within a mere few weeks, every climate model has failed and can't even reflect what we observe in the real world with constant adjustments...why do you suppose that is?  Well, let me tell you....the climate models are based on the "science" behind the greenhouse hypothesis and in turn the AGW hypothesis....if the "science" were correct, the models would have a damned good track record in so far as their predictive ability goes rather than a string of failure going back decades...

The hypothesis upon which the models are based is wrong therefore they are never going to be able to produce output that matches what happens out here in the real world.



frigidweirdo said:


> Does that mean we don't bother with the weather forecast? No, it doesn't. In fact many people actually rely on the weather forecast, even if it is sometimes wrong.[/quot3e]
> 
> Do you make iron clad plans based on the weather forecast 10 days out?  5 days out?  2 days out?  How often do you find that the predictions didn't match reality?....and that is just the local weather...a very simple system in comparison with the global climate....we can't even predict whether it will rain on my tomatoes this weekend with a system as simple as the local weather but you believe climate models predicting a hundred years out?  What's the matter with you and why don't you have any critical thinking skills?
> 
> ...


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Fine you want to talk about Henry's law.
> ...



No. 

I'm talking to you about this aspect. 

I asked you a question. I didn't expect arrogant bullshit in return, I kind of expected you to answer the question. 






Here's CO2 levels in one place in Australia. Gone from 330 to 380 in the space of 40 years. 

http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/GenChem1/L25/web-L25.pdf

At the bottom of page 5 there's a chart showing PH levels over a 25 million year period. I'm not sure why you're going back so far, perhaps you think you have a reason to. There have been times when PH levels rose quite high, and now they're getting lower, and they have been at about these levels before, 6 million years ago, 17 million years ago etc. 

We've even seen a drop in PH levels as we've experienced in the last 3 million years before. However the starting levels were higher, and then it stopped after about 3 million years. If we keep on going, then what? Also, the levels of drop seem to be similar to what we've experienced in our relative history, if we make the level drop faster, then what? We don't know.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Giving you a means to see the truth regarding the ability of a warm liquid to hold CO2 vs a cold liquid is a tangent?  You wanted evidence and I am delivering it to you on a silver platter...well actually on your kitchen counter and you call that a tangent?    It says a great deal about your critical thinking skills....doesn't it.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



What about it...No one is arguing that CO2 levels are rising and have seen a significant rise since even 1998...but there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998 even though the hypothesis predicts that as CO2 climbs, the warming will become even greater due to all the claimed forcings...none of the claims has happened.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> The point I am making is that the predictions of the models don't reflect what we see in the real world...within a mere few weeks, every climate model has failed and can't even reflect what we observe in the real world with constant adjustments...why do you suppose that is?  Well, let me tell you....the climate models are based on the "science" behind the greenhouse hypothesis and in turn the AGW hypothesis....if the "science" were correct, the models would have a damned good track record in so far as their predictive ability goes rather than a string of failure going back decades...
> 
> The hypothesis upon which the models are based is wrong therefore they are never going to be able to produce output that matches what happens out here in the real world.




You say the models have "failed". I'm wondering what you mean by "failed". Can you give me some examples of models that have failed and why you think they've failed?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Yeah, because it isn't what I asked for. It's something different. 

I didn't ask you about the ability of liquid to hold CO2 and the differences in temperature. 



SSDD said:


> Pollution, run off etc is the only danger to the oceans....there is not enough fossil fuel on earth to raise the PH level of the oceans to dangerous levels...the ocean is buffered to heavily...read a bit about it and give up your alarmist handwringing...do your part to end the AGW scam so that we can finally turn to the real environmental problems facing our planet....polution...poor land use....etc.



You said that there aren't enough fossil fuels on earth to raise the PH levels of oceans to dangerous levels. 

Nothing you have said has anything to do with A) the amount of fossil fuels or B) what levels are dangerous or c) how much fossil fuels are required to reach that level. 

You're talking about how CO2 functions within water. All very well and good if that were what we were discussing...


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Well, I'm sure some people are arguing this. However we're not. 

So, back to my point.

The oceans are taking up a lot of the CO2, which means we pump in say X amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, we're only seeing (X/2) turning into global warming. 

Secondly, and probably quite important is what the Earth would be doing naturally. In theory we should be going through a period of global cooling. Now, if you take natural global cooling and you add this to man made global warming, you might not see the increases you'd expect if the Earth's temperature were stable. 

Prediction models could, in theory, make their predictions based on natural global cooling, and different extents of this, but they're always going to be wrong (or most will be wrong) simply because we don't know what natural global cooling should be taking place. 

Now, we get to the important part. 

If A) we should be seeing natural cooling but we're seeing slight global warming and B) if we're clogging the oceans up with CO2 and at some point they're going to get annoyed and stop taking in this CO2, what do you think the outcome for the planet would be, based on these two assessments?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



It isn't surprising that you fall victim to practically every scam that comes along...you apparently lack the ability to look up even the most basic information.

Here, from a paper titled "Technological and Economic Potential of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction "Published in "Climate Change 2001"...you will find it referenced in IPCC AR4 I think...

"Current estimates have that there is not enough fossil fuel to drive the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide much above 2200 ppm"  

Best estimates say that in order to actually turn the oceans acidic, the atmospheric CO2 would need to be in the 55,000ppm range in order to over come the ocean's buffering action as well as all the natural sinks...The fact is frigid, that you have fallen victim to alarmism that is not based on fact.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The point I am making is that the predictions of the models don't reflect what we see in the real world...within a mere few weeks, every climate model has failed and can't even reflect what we observe in the real world with constant adjustments...why do you suppose that is?  Well, let me tell you....the climate models are based on the "science" behind the greenhouse hypothesis and in turn the AGW hypothesis....if the "science" were correct, the models would have a damned good track record in so far as their predictive ability goes rather than a string of failure going back decades...
> ...



Here just for starters:  See the blue squares, they represent actual measurements made by balloons sent up into the atmosphere with thermometers among other instrumentation...note how closely the balloon (actual observed measurements) coincide with the two satellite data sets....see all the lines above those sets...they are the output of the models that are being used to predict all the gloom and doom that you have bought hook line and sinker...and that is just for starters...the list of failures the models have produced is to huge to even begin to post here...it stretches back for decades...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 27, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, I'm sure some people are arguing this. However we're not.
> 
> So, back to my point.
> 
> The oceans are taking up a lot of the CO2, which means we pump in say X amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, we're only seeing (X/2) turning into global warming.



Simply not true...Again, refer to Henry's law...if the oceans are warming, then they are not absorbing CO2 as quickly as they did when they were cold....if the oceans are not warming, then the claimed global warming is not happening...you can't have it both ways....

And if you have measurements showing that ocean Ph is increasing while the atmosphere is growing warmer, then you are seeing misinformation....either the atmosphere is not warming and the oceans are in fact cooling,, or you are seeing data gathered at particular times to show a lower Ph...you are aware, aren't you that at different times of the day Ph levels for sea water vary wildly?...or maybe you aren't.



frigidweirdo said:


> Secondly, and probably quite important is what the Earth would be doing naturally. In theory we should be going through a period of global cooling. Now, if you take natural global cooling and you add this to man made global warming, you might not see the increases you'd expect if the Earth's temperature were stable.



And what do you base that claim on?...model output?  There certainly are no proxy data sets that can show resolution fine enough for you to make such a claim.




frigidweirdo said:


> If A) we should be seeing natural cooling but we're seeing slight global warming and B) if we're clogging the oceans up with CO2 and at some point they're going to get annoyed and stop taking in this CO2, what do you think the outcome for the planet would be, based on these two assessments?



What actual observed, measured, quantified empirical evidence do you base the claim that we should be seeing cooling on?  

And by the way, are you aware that the CRN...a triple redundant, state of the art temperature collection network that is so pristinely placed shows that the US is cooling while the major data sets with all their adjustments show the same warming trend in the US as for the rest of the world?  Is there any reason to believe that if the CRN were extended to cover the face of the entire earth that it would not show the cooling trend that it shows in the US?

And while the US is showing a cooling trend...there is no data in support of the claim that we "should" be seeing a cooling trend...


----------



## Crick (Apr 27, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, I'm sure some people are arguing this. However we're not.
> 
> So, back to my point.
> 
> The oceans are taking up a lot of the CO2, which means we pump in say X amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, we're only seeing (X/2) turning into global warming.





SSDD said:


> Simply not true...Again, refer to Henry's law...if the oceans are warming, then they are not absorbing CO2 as quickly as they did when they were cold....if the oceans are not warming, then the claimed global warming is not happening...you can't have it both ways....



You never fail to demonstrate your ignorance and your inability to hang on to unwanted facts.  This has been explained to you multiple times before.  The partial pressure of CO2 has increased 42%.  Thus the rate of uptake from that has increased 42%.  The oceans temperature has increased about 0.07%.  CO2 wins.

As we have seen on a dozen subjects, your conceptualization of natural processes has the gross simplicity of a small child's.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I'm sure some people are arguing this. However we're not.
> ...



You quote two people, and then reply. Who are you replying to?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Scam, what scam? Please, cut out the petty nonsense. I'm not here to be treated like you're a science teacher. 
Basically, if you carry on doing this, I'm not going to debate with you.

The funny thing is, I ask you to prove something, you then post something else, then you criticize me for not being able to look stuff up. What the fuck? It's YOUR JOB TO PROVE YOUR CLAIMS. 

Would it be hard to post a link?

http://unfccc.int/resource/cd_roms/...ls/IPCC_WG3_TAR_Mitigation_2001/Chapter_3.pdf

I have this, however I don't see IPCC AR4 there or any other reference to this. 

Now, would this be the same year 2001 before we discovered loads more fossil fuels. 

From 2010

How Much Fossil Fuel is in the Earth? : DNews

"Earth contains a finite supply of fossil fuels –- the big three being oil, coal and natural gas. And although we know it's finite, we don't really know how long they will last."

So why you're quoting something from 2001 I don't know.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Would you say weather forecasts have got better since 1975? Probably. This is science. People have to make models, then if the model fails then they have more stuff to look at, then they make new models and they see. Models are probably getting more accurate as we understand more and more about our climate. 

That doesn't mean all models are incorrect. It also doesn't mean people are wrong for making models which are incorrect. 

It's part of Science. And as we move forward we're getting a better awareness of what is happening around us. However people like you are willing to just denounce everything. "oh, it failed, well then the whole science is bullshit and we should never look at climate change models again"

I disagree. I say that we look at the models and we see them for what they are. We also look at the data, and the data says things are changing. But then we look back at the models and why they failed, then we see that there are other factors at play here.

Then we come to a conclusion about what we believe could happen. 

Now I'm quite loose about what could happen in the future. I don't know and I don't claim to know what will happen. What I can say is what COULD happen and give a variety of possibilities based on what I see. Some of the possibilities are quite bad, others less so. 

Imagine you're standing on a cliff. You know part of the cliff collapsed a few weeks before. Do you stand right on the edge and look down and dare the cliff to collapse? Or do you stand a safe distance away? I'm the latter, you seem to be the former.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I'm sure some people are arguing this. However we're not.
> ...



I disagree with you, in fact I'm not really sure what you're getting at. 

You have two things. One is the oceans are warming and less CO2 is being taken up. Yeah, and? The other is the oceans aren't warming. Yeah, and? You haven't said which one you agree with, you've made statements and nothing more. So..... what do I say? I don't have anything to say.

What data do I use to suggest we should be going through a period of natural cooling?











Things like this. Here is just a few examples, I'm sure you don't need me to throw massive amounts of data at you. I'll make my point. 

Each time it appears that the temperature rises to a peak. It simply starts quite low and then rises steadily over a (relatively) short period of time, before sinking back down again. We have three examples, all about 100,000 years apart. Yes they differ. The last one saw the peak, then a drop and then an up down up down for a long period of time before dropping further in one place, but a drop in another place. 

But it did drop from this peak. We saw a peak, and then we saw it go up again. Have we reached this peak? Yes, we probably have. Can anyone say for certain? No they can't.

HOWEVER, the point here is that natural global cooling could be playing a part in the process. 

Therefore go back to the possibilities for the future, well we could be seeing man made global warming on a much higher scale than we're actually experiencing, couldn't we?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 27, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


You know, SSDD, we have some capital liars here that pull all kinds of figures out of their asses, but I do believe that you have just taken the blue ribbon. We get to 55,000 ppm, there won't be any oceans.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I'm sure some people are arguing this. However we're not.
> ...




Sorry crick...you couldn't be more wrong...but hey, you believe what you like...  The fact is that when atmospheric CO2 was 1000ppm, 2000ppm, 3000pp, and higher still the oceans were not acidic...and in fact, most modern marine life evolved under just those sorts of conditions...once again, the belief of warmers does not mesh with reality...


----------



## Crick (Apr 28, 2016)

And has been explained to YOU on multiple occasions, all those periods you mention developed over hundreds of thousands to millions of years allowing time for the ocean's pH to be buffered by the weathering of calcium carbonates ashore.  One of the very few times in the past when CO2 rose as quickly as it is doing now resulted in the Permian Triassic extinction event, killing nearly 95% of all marine species.

And you fail to address the 42% change in pp CO2versus the 0.07% change in temperature.  You would properly address that by admitting that you were wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Would you say weather forecasts have got better since 1975? Probably. This is science. People have to make models, then if the model fails then they have more stuff to look at, then they make new models and they see. Models are probably getting more accurate as we understand more and more about our climate.



Perhaps marginally better but we haven't learned much since 1975 regarding weather systems that we didn't already know.



frigidweirdo said:


> That doesn't mean all models are incorrect. It also doesn't mean people are wrong for making models which are incorrect.



All global climate models are incorrect because they are based on flawed science.



frigidweirdo said:


> It's part of Science. And as we move forward we're getting a better awareness of what is happening around us. However people like you are willing to just denounce everything. "oh, it failed, well then the whole science is bullshit and we should never look at climate change models again"



If it is science, why then are the failed hypothesis and the resulting failed models not scrapped and replaced with a hypothesis upon which models can be made more accurate...CO2 is not the driver of the global climate and so long as that is the premise of the models, they will continue to fail.



frigidweirdo said:


> Now I'm quite loose about what could happen in the future. I don't know and I don't claim to know what will happen. What I can say is what COULD happen and give a variety of possibilities based on what I see. Some of the possibilities are quite bad, others less so.



And you are willing to spend crazy amounts of money and do irreparable damage to the world economy based on what "could" happen as predicted by failing models?  How crazy is that?



frigidweirdo said:


> Imagine you're standing on a cliff. You know part of the cliff collapsed a few weeks before. Do you stand right on the edge and look down and dare the cliff to collapse? Or do you stand a safe distance away? I'm the latter, you seem to be the former.



Do you have the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence that the earth is in fact standing on a cliff?...or is that just more alarmist handwaving....The fact is that nothing whatsoever in the climate is even approaching the boundaries of natural variability....  Standing on the edge of a crumbling cliff paints a picture that is quite different from your normal state...if you live a "normal" life and suddenly are doing intravenous drugs, having unprotected sex with prostitutes and junkies, and going out at night to rob liquor stores then you are standing on a cliff as evidenced by the fact that you have stepped outside your natural variability....when the earth's climate gets even close to its boundaries of natural variability, let me know....because we aren't even close right now...in fact, historically speaking, it is damned cold, the atmosphere is starved for CO2 and there is ice at both poles....


----------



## Crick (Apr 28, 2016)

Show us a model that does not assume AGW that even comes close to hindcasting the temperature trends of the last 100 years.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> I disagree with you, in fact I'm not really sure what you're getting at.
> 
> You have two things. One is the oceans are warming and less CO2 is being taken up. Yeah, and? The other is the oceans aren't warming. Yeah, and? You haven't said which one you agree with, you've made statements and nothing more. So..... what do I say? I don't have anything to say.



Doesn't matter which I agree with...the point is that you can't have it both ways....



frigidweirdo said:


> What data do I use to suggest we should be going through a period of natural cooling?



Do you see the time scale on those graphs?....with time scales like that do you really believe that you can say that we should be cooling now?  What do you think the resolution on those graphs is?...and can you use that resolution to make 100 year predictions?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> Show us a model that does not assume AGW that even comes close to hindcasting the temperature trends of the last 100 years.




All of them crick....all GCM's are spectacular failures.


----------



## Crick (Apr 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Show us a model that does not assume AGW that even comes close to hindcasting the temperature trends of the last 100 years.
> ...



You don't seem to have understood the question.

Show us a GCM that does NOT assume human GHG emissions will warm the planet that even comes close to hindcasting the last 100 years.

PS, the claim that GCMs which do make such assumptions fail is a simple lie.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Would you say weather forecasts have got better since 1975? Probably. This is science. People have to make models, then if the model fails then they have more stuff to look at, then they make new models and they see. Models are probably getting more accurate as we understand more and more about our climate.
> ...



Everything we use to predict the future is based on "flawed science", however this might be a far more accurate reading of the future than what you're saying. Whether you like it or not you're also predicting the future. And you're saying there is no problem with the way things are going so we shouldn't do anything about it. Based on what? Well by the looks of it based on a get out clause that other people might not be 100% spot on, therefore we should regard everything they have ever done as wrong.

That's far worse than people using science and making predictions that might not be 100% accurate. 


As for why aren't hypothesis replaced? Well actually they are. Scientists are always changing, trying to become more accurate. I don't know where you got the idea that scientist are always trying to prove the same thing. They're not. 

Am I willing to spend lots of money to not destroy the only world we have? Yes. 

Money is money, it doesn't make life. There are things that are far more important than money.

The world economy won't be destroyed because people are being more careful with the environment. Perhaps things will cost more and people won't be able to have a massive fuck of SUV to drive to their neighbor's house five meters away, oh no. 

I don't drive a car, I've never owned one, and I don't want one. I don't need one. We can live closer to the Earth (or however you want to phrase it), but people are selfish and choose not to. So we kill the planet because we'd rather have a size XXXXXXX fat ass instead of actually living life properly.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


huh?  Melting ice where?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree with you, in fact I'm not really sure what you're getting at.
> ...



I didn't say I was having it either way. I haven't said which is either, and nor have you, which is why I'm a little confused as to why you're talking about it.

Do I think I can say something? Yes, I do. I might not be right. I'm not saying WE ARE HAVING NATURAL COOLING. I'm saying there is a possibility. I'm saying that any climate change model is going to have to deal with NATURAL change as well as man made change, and to predict what it SHOULD BE compared to what it is, is impossible. 

So..... 

However anyone can see from those charts what they believe happened with the temperatures, and anyone with eyes can see a pattern, and anyone with eyes can see the pattern seems to have been broken and we're seeing a rise when it looks like a fall. 

So....

The potential for natural cooling is there, isn't it. Can you say for certain there is no natural cooling going on with man made warming that is making the man made warming look less? No you can't.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Antarctica, where it matters. 

Let me guess, you'll pull charts of ice covering a wider areas as "evidence" that there's MORE ice, even though it fails to take into account the thickness of that ice.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


well, why is it when it is proven to be a model and not observed, do the warmers continue to post the same exact material.  What is it that you all can't understand about the word Observed? Have you looked that word up and if so, do you even understand its meaning?  I have to say, you are truly funny that you can't figure out the difference between what is modeled data and observed data. Funny.  Hey, can you science?  I didn't think so, cause you have no clue.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


but, where is it melting?  Show us.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2016)

*



Explore this journal >




Previous article in issue: Middepth circulation of the eastern tropical South Pacific and its link to the oxygen minimum zone



Next article in issue: Temporal and spatial dynamics of CO2 air-sea flux in the Gulf of Maine

View issue TOC
Volume 116, Issue C1
January 2011

Heat sources for glacial melt in a sub-Arctic fjord (Godthåbsfjord) in contact with the Greenland Ice Sheet
Authors
*

*Abstract*
[1] Recent warming of Subpolar Mode Water off Greenland has been suggested to accelerate the mass loss from tidal outlet glaciers of the Greenland Ice Sheet. We present a comprehensive analysis of water masses, dynamics, and interannual hydrographic variability in Godthåbsfjord, a sill fjord in contact with tidal outlet glaciers on the west coast of Greenland. Through seasonal observations we recognize an intermediate baroclinic circulation mode driven by tidal currents and an associated important local heat source for the fjord. During summer this results in significant warming and freshening of the intermediate layer of the main fjord, and the increase in heat content is equivalent to melting of ∼2.1 km3 of glacial ice. This is comparable to ∼8 km3 glacial ice discharge estimated from the Kangiata Nunâta Sermia calving front per year. During winter the external heat source in the West Greenland Current enters the fjord as intermittent inflows of either cold (<2°C) or warm (>2°C) dense water in pulses of 1 to 3 months duration. Four distinct circulation modes are observed in the fjord, of which all can contribute to glacial ice melt. An important aspect of the ice distribution in the fjord is that only a minor fraction is exported out of the fjord.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JC006528/full

*Full text if you really want to find out.*


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Scientists do their thing. What they then publish gets reported. What people do with information after the fact is not the fault of the scientists, is it? 

You keep going on about "observed", I understand what it means, however you seem to be using it as some kind of tool to be able to ignore everything. 

Observed is what is seen. Observed can be seen in a variety of different ways. Ice core is observed. But maybe you'd say this isn't observed. Words often convey what people THINK they convey, and two people might have different views on what this word is saying in a specific context. 

As for me having no clue. This is the last warning, if you continue to try and use silly tricks like this, i'm out of this conversation with you.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2016)

*The influence of North Atlantic atmospheric and oceanic forcing effects on 1900–2010 Greenland summer climate and ice melt/runoff*
*Authors*
Correlation analysis of Greenland coastal weather station temperatures against the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) indices for the summer season (when Ice Sheet melt and runoff occur) reveals significant temporal variations over the last 100 years, with periods of strongest correlations in the early twentieth century and during recent decades. During the mid-twentieth century, temperature changes at the stations are not significantly correlated with these circulation indices. Greenland coastal summer temperatures and Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) runoff since the 1970s are more strongly correlated with the Greenland Blocking Index (GBI) than with the NAO Index (NAOI), making the GBI a potentially useful predictor of ice-sheet mass balance changes. Our results show that the changing strength of NAOI–temperature relationships found in boreal winter also extends to summer over Greenland. Greenland temperatures and GrIS runoff over the last 30–40 years are significantly correlated with AMO variations, although they are more strongly correlated with GBI changes. GrIS melt extent is less significantly correlated with atmospheric and oceanic index changes than runoff, which we attribute to the latter being a more quantitative index of Ice Sheet response to climate change. Moreover, the four recent warm summers of 2007–2010 are characterised by unprecedented high pressure (since at least 1948—the start of the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis record) in the tropospheric column. Our results suggest complex and changing atmospheric forcing conditions that are not well captured using the NAO alone, and support theories of an oceanic influence on the recent increases in Greenland temperatures and GrIS runoff. Copyright © 2012 Royal Meteorological Society

The influence of North Atlantic atmospheric and oceanic forcing effects on 1900–2010 Greenland summer climate and ice melt/runoff - Hanna - 2012 - International Journal of Climatology -  Wiley Online Library

*Translation just for jc, a warming atmosphere is melting the ice.*


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is a seasonal event.  Not sure what your point is from this document.  can you explain?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 28, 2016)

Matthew said:


> *You skeptics and deniers often say why don't we warmers make predictions that are in the short term so we can be called out for them? Well, I am going to make a few and tie them in with the enso. I am making a assumption that the global temperature will be .05-.1c warmer based on the giss dataset then we were pre-2015-2016 nino. I will put my credibility on the line and I want a mod to pin this at the top of this forum for skeptics/deniers to rip me apart when I get it wrong! *
> 
> *When will I be wrong? *
> 1. IF we see a moderate nina year that turns out to be .56 or .58c...That is wrong. Rip me a part as a idiot!
> ...


Every prediction has been wrong so far.

Why should we believe this one?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2016)

Didn't read even the abstract, jc? It is not seasonal, the water is warmer than 2 C for much of the winter, that will melt the ice. You asked for just one place where the ice was melting. You got it in spades. You are simply too stupid too understand what you are reading.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > *You skeptics and deniers often say why don't we warmers make predictions that are in the short term so we can be called out for them? Well, I am going to make a few and tie them in with the enso. I am making a assumption that the global temperature will be .05-.1c warmer based on the giss dataset then we were pre-2015-2016 nino. I will put my credibility on the line and I want a mod to pin this at the top of this forum for skeptics/deniers to rip me apart when I get it wrong! *
> ...


Now that is one really stupid thing to state. You people were first stating that it was not warming, and when it became so evident that it is warming, you changed your tune to 'it's natural variability'. Is is you asshole deniers that have failed completely in your predictions. 

You were all talking about no warming since 1998, yet here we are with 2015 totally blowing away the warming in 1998. The ice continues to melt to in the Arctic, Greenland, and Antarctic, the alpine glaciers worldwide continue to retreat. Why the lies, Skull? What are you gaining by that, other than loosing any credibility that you have left?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


yes ice cores are observed.  why are scientists changing the records off of those ice cores?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2016)

Link, or be shown to be a lying asshole.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Didn't read even the abstract, jc? It is not seasonal, the water is warmer than 2 C for much of the winter, that will melt the ice. You asked for just one place where the ice was melting. You got it in spades. You are simply too stupid too understand what you are reading.


did you read it?  It says right here in your own abstract:

"Through _*seasonal observations*_ we recognize an intermediate baroclinic circulation mode driven by tidal currents and an associated important local heat source for the fjord. _*During summer this results in significant warming*_ and freshening of the intermediate layer of the main fjord, and the increase in heat content is equivalent to melting of ∼2.1 km3 of glacial ice. This is comparable to ∼8 km3 glacial ice discharge estimated from the Kangiata Nunâta Sermia calving front per year. _*During winter the external heat source in the West Greenland Current enters the fjord as intermittent inflows*_ of either cold (<2°C) or warm (>2°C) dense water in pulses of 1 to 3 months duration. Four distinct circulation modes are observed in the fjord, of which all can contribute to glacial ice melt. An_* important aspect of the ice distribution in the fjord is that only a minor fraction is exported out of the fjord.*_

What is it you think I missed.  And did you read the full article?  I read 75% of it. Now there is nothing there making any claim that floods are a likely outcome.  Nope!

Freshwater is a big word you should also understand.  Freshwater is from the melt.  It happens every year in summer.  Wow dude.

Oh, Calving is normal.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2016)

Why yes, freshwater is from the ice melt. And it freezes to ice in the winter on the surface. And is subject to melting during the winter from below by the pulses of ocean water that are at 2 degrees Celsius. Just for your information, fresh water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius. Now you know something you didn't before. 

Poor jc, really has some catching up to do. Reading comprehension and basic science.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2016)

Where's the link to the change in the interpretation of the ice cores?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Why yes, freshwater is from the ice melt. And it freezes to ice in the winter on the surface. And is subject to melting during the winter from below by the pulses of ocean water that are at 2 degrees Celsius. Just for your information, fresh water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius. Now you know something you didn't before.
> 
> Poor jc, really has some catching up to do. Reading comprehension and basic science.


so still don't see how that is going to make 3 feet of sea level increase.  it is all been happening in the arctic since it first froze over.  So, still socks no point except that nothing you presented is evidence that a sea wall of water is headed south.  so, again, you failed.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Where's the link to the change in the interpretation of the ice cores?


NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special

Excerpt:
*"NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special"*


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2016)

No doubt that the bulk of warmer wacko claims are the result of data manipulation...the rest are based on the output of failed climate models.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Where's the link to the change in the interpretation of the ice cores?
> ...


jc, nothing about ice cores in that, you lying SOB. And John Coleman has zero credentials or credibility. 

NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special

*NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special*
Press Release From: KUSI-TV 
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010

Climate researchers have discovered that NASA researchers improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." KUSI-TV meteorologist, Weather Channel founder, and iconic weatherman John Coleman will present these findings in a one-hour special airing on KUSI-TV on Jan.14 at 9 p.m. A related report will be made available on the Internet at 6 p.m. EST on January 14th at www.kusi.com.

In a new report, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Ashville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D'Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations. The report is available online at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> Show us a model that does not assume AGW that even comes close to hindcasting the temperature trends of the last 100 years.



The point crick....is that no model is accurate because the physical basis of the models are flawed....you don't need to have a model that can hind cast accurately to prove that the present crop of models are failing miserably....the fact is that we don't know nearly enough about the climate and what drives it to make any claims whatsoever...the fact of the 2 decade pause while CO2 has climbed steadily is strong observed, measured, quantified evidence that the CO2 portion of the AGW hypothesis, and the greenhouse hypothesis are wrong.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2016)

*John Coleman*

​
Learn more from theCenter for Media and Democracy's research on *climate change.*

*John Coleman* founded The Weather Channel in 1982. He is currently the weatherman at station KUSI-TV in San Diego, California. He spoke as a global warming skeptic at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change and the International Conference on Climate Change (2009). Both events were organized by the Heartland Institute think tank. [1]

John Coleman may describe himself as a scientist or even a meteorologist but he is neither. His degree is in media studies [2]

John Coleman - SourceWatch

*Just another liar on the Exxon-Mobile payroll.*


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


dude, to change the past records, one would have to change the noted temperature anomalies taken from ice cores.  Not sure how else they can change 6000 year old records.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *John Coleman*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



None of which addresses the accuracy or inaccuracy of his claims...he could be a janitor and still have valid data proving his point....ad hominem is the weakest of arguments and oddly enough it is your go to mode of argument....says much about you rocks....speaks volumes about your character or lack thereof.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Show us a model that does not assume AGW that even comes close to hindcasting the temperature trends of the last 100 years.
> ...


What the fuck are you talking about? Two decade pause? Of the fifteen warmest years on record, all have occurred in that two decade period. Those two decades would have started in 1996, since 2015 is the last full year on record. You guys not only lie incessantly, you can't even count. 

And 2015 really was one big jump in the record, between 2015, and what we have seen in the first three months of 2016, we have seen a step up equal to that of 1998. Now, as we come of this El Nino, watch you silly asses try to tell everyone we are in a cooling because the next few years don't match what we have just seen. Then, another strong El Nino, and, once again, the record is broken. What a bunch of idiots you are demonstrating yourselves to be.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


jc, that was not your claim. You claimed they changed the data from the cores. Since you can find that data in many papers on Google Scholar, it should be very easy for you to back up that claim. You cannot because that claim is pulled out of your ass, and smells like the shit it is.

Don't you ever get tired of being proven to be an asshole liar?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *John Coleman*
> ...


But his claim has absolutely nothing to do with ice cores.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


and yet the IPCC AR5 report from 2013 states this:

excerpt:
"As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5."

Blows all CO2 claims out of the water.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


they did if they changed the data from 6000 years ago.  Sorry, no other way to manipulate without doing that.


----------



## Markle (Apr 28, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



So what percentage?  Is CO2 NOT an absolute necessity for plant growth in the oceans?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


jc, link. Flap yap claims and no link. Lies, all lies. That is what you post, and you cannot deny it. No link, proof of your perfidy.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 28, 2016)

Markle said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


Salt is an absolute necessity in your diet. So just down a pint of it right now. Surely cannot do you any harm, after all, it is a necessity in your diet.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


and there is evidence to support the salt reference, but you still don't have one for the CO2 thingy.  Remember less LWIR means more warming. hahahaahahhahaahahahahaha and you call yourself science knowledgeable.


----------



## Markle (Apr 28, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Was it NOT forecast, ten or so years ago, that the Arctic would be ICE FREE?  Just curious....


----------



## Markle (Apr 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



*The Pause hangs on by its fingernails*
Guest Blogger / February 6, 2016

*By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley*

The sharp el Niño spike is just about to abolish the long Pause in global temperatures – at least for now. This column has long foretold that the present el Niño would be substantial, and that it might at least shorten if not extinguish the Pause. After all, theory requires that _some _global warming ought to occur.

This month, though, the Pause clings on. Though January 2016 was the warmest January in the RSS satellite record since 1979, the El Niño spike has not yet lasted long enough to end the Pause. That will happen by next month’s report. The RSS data still show no global warming for 18 years 8 months, notwithstanding record increases in CO2 concentration over the period.






The Pause hangs on by its fingernails


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> What the fuck are you talking about? Two decade pause? Of the fifteen warmest years on record, all have occurred in that two decade period. Those two decades would have started in 1996, since 2015 is the last full year on record. You guys not only lie incessantly, you can't even count.



Warmest years?...by hundredths of a degree....after heavy massaging of the data....you are kidding...right?...


----------



## SSDD (Apr 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Salt is an absolute necessity in your diet. So just down a pint of it right now. Surely cannot do you any harm, after all, it is a necessity in your diet.



Tired old meaningless argument....just like you rocks...alarmist handwaving is not science and that seems to be all you have...that and the out put of failed climate models...certainly nothing like observed, measured, quantified evidence to support any of your claims.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Hey fuck wad I never denied the earth is warming slightly and I even agree that people can cause climate change.

I just don't fall for the biblical disaster spiel that you do.

And not one of these dire predictions has come to pass as yet so why should these be any different?


----------



## Crick (Apr 28, 2016)

Skull Pilot said:


> Every prediction has been wrong so far.
> 
> Why should we believe this one?



He's not asking you to, dipshit.  He's just laying it out there for all of us to call him on when it comes due.

Nobody here really gives a shit what you believe.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Every prediction has been wrong so far.
> ...


Was I talking to you?

In case you're too fucking stupid to realize it.  I wasn't.


----------



## Markle (Apr 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Link, or be shown to be a lying asshole.



You really should read some sources that are not hoodwinked Global Warming suckers.


----------



## Markle (Apr 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



As I prove you a wrong...again, you are really going to hate my post following this one.


----------



## Markle (Apr 28, 2016)

*Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records*

by JAMES DELINGPOLE28 Apr 20161,726

*You’ve read about the climate fraud committed ‘on an unbelievable scale’ by the shysters at NASA.*
You’ve read about how NOAA overestimated US warming by 50 percent.

Now it’s NSIDC’s turn to be caught red-handed fiddling the data and cooking the books.

NSIDC – National Snow and Ice Data Center – is the US government agency which provides the official statistics on such matters as sea ice coverage in the Arctic.

Naturally its research is of paramount importance to the climate alarmists’ narrative that man-made global warming is causing the polar ice caps to melt. At least it was until those ice caps refused to play ball…

Where the alarmists have for years been doomily predicting ice free summers in the Arctic –  according to Al Gore in 2007, 2008 and 2009 it would be gone by 2013 – the truth is that multi-year ice has been staging a recovery since 2009.





So what do you do if reality doesn’t suit your narrative? Simple. If you’re NSIDC (and NASA and NOAA…) you just change reality.

Read more...if you dare....
Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records


----------



## Crick (Apr 28, 2016)

It's a discussion board, honey.  Everyone gets to talk to everyone.  If you want a private conversation, take it to PM.


----------



## Markle (Apr 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> It's a discussion board, honey.  Everyone gets to talk to everyone.  If you want a private conversation, take it to PM.



I'm discussing honey, are FACTS not allowed? Several long time posters have demanded links and proof.  Is that not allowed?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Which scientists are changing the records?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 28, 2016)

Markle said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



What percentage? Well that would depend on what type of damage you're looking at, which part of the ocean you're looking at and a whole host of other things. 

In the end giving a percentage is completely pointless. All aspects need to be looked at and attempts at fixing them made. 

Yes, CO2 is essential for plants. Just as Oxygen is essential for humans, yet too much Oxygen will poison humans, and too much CO2 will poison the air and the seas.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 28, 2016)

Markle said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I'm sorry, what? You've jumped from talking about the amount of ice, to suddenly talking about some scientists (being neither you nor me) talking about ice free summers.... how did you make this leap? And would you like to stay on the line of conversation and answer my post?


----------



## Markle (Apr 28, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Please read the article.  It too has links.  You're not going to like them, though they are factual.  I know, you want things that feel good, make you feel warm and fuzzy.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 28, 2016)

Markle said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Are you making your argument, or am I making your argument?


----------



## Crick (Apr 29, 2016)

Markle said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > It's a discussion board, honey.  Everyone gets to talk to everyone.  If you want a private conversation, take it to PM.
> ...



The comment was to Skull Pilot.

And if you really want to pull up a blog from electrical engineer and well-known fuck up Tony Heller (nee Steven Goddard) as "proof", you go right ahead.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 29, 2016)

Markle said:


> *Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records*
> 
> by JAMES DELINGPOLE28 Apr 20161,726
> 
> ...


Breibart? You consider that a credible source? Really? Damn.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> It's a discussion board, honey.  Everyone gets to talk to everyone.  If you want a private conversation, take it to PM.




Try to remember that when people you weren't talking to start asking you uncomfortable questions...you are the first to cry that you were talking to someone else.


----------



## Markle (Apr 29, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > *Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records*
> ...



Cute try my good friend.  AS YOU KNOW, Breitbart, as many sites, simply research and post news articles from other sites.  The same is true here, this is not an original article, this comes from a reliable source.  One, as you know, you can find with a simple search on Bing.

I understand you are extremely frustrated and desperate since you are unable to refute anything in the post.  So you lash out with a childish, meaningless accusation.

Keep up the good work, soon...perhaps...you'll post something of substance.


----------



## Markle (Apr 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Why would you be boasting about having NOTHING?


----------



## Crick (Apr 30, 2016)

I have the IPCC's AR1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and the tens of thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies on which they are based.  What have you got?


----------



## Markle (Apr 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> I have the IPCC's AR1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and the tens of thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies on which they are based.  What have you got?



FACTS AND TRUTH.  Piece of cake.

As you know, your thousands of peer reviewed studies have proven to be bogus, once again.


----------



## Crick (Apr 30, 2016)

Please explain why you think so.


----------



## IanC (May 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> Please explain why you think so.






would it make any difference to you if he did explain why he thought so? in detail, with links, etc?

I have done so in the past and you simply handwave away any evidence that politics plays a strong role in what the the IPCC states are the conclusions to be drawn from the truncated list of evidence provided in its reports.


----------



## SSDD (May 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> I have the IPCC's AR1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and the tens of thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies on which they are based.  What have you got?



the real question is...what do they have?....I have been asking for some observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW and you guys don't seem to be able to come with the first bit....tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers and not a shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence...that is a joke....you guys are a joke...and climate pseudoscience is a joke.


----------



## Crick (May 1, 2016)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Please explain why you think so.
> ...



You think it's acceptable to "handwave" away all of modern day science? You have no comment for the handwaving he's already accomplished yet you want to take me to task for something I've not yet done.  Why would that be Ian?


----------



## SSDD (May 1, 2016)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Please explain why you think so.
> ...



Here is a good example of IPCC "science"...

In 1995 the IPCC said that there had been no warming between 1958 and 1995....try to find a modern graph after all the "adjustments and massaging" that reflects this 1995 graph...


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 1, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Your sources are totally biased sites which can only exist by funds from the government and other donations.  All they support is Global Warming.  But, it is a cute try!
> ...


Because Dr Spencer shows the fraud, using real world data and empirical evidence, you call him discredited. Then without a shred of evidence to show that what he has said is wrong you defame him..  

WOW.

I am going to side with Dr Spencer who has real world empirical evidence to support him while you liars have Consensus and no evidence..

Science is about the evidence not a group of paid for liars who have no empirical evidence and claim their failed models are their proof.. Your emperor has no cloths and your wondering why we are all laughing at your silly asses..


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 1, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


And if you compared that graph to Karl Et Al you would see that the data before 1970 has been dropped almost 1.2 deg C and the data above 1970 has been increased by 0.6 deg C...  Even the IPCC shows how massive and desperate the AGW fraud is..


----------



## Crick (May 1, 2016)

That massive a fraud MUST bother someone's conscious.  Have you found anyone confessing to it yet?  Do you actually have any evidence that the data were adjusted without cause?  It seems over and over again that your only complaint is that it's going in a direction you don't like.  However, plenty of adjustments have tended to reduce warming.  You just don't like to talk about those.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 1, 2016)

Time will tell rather my prediction is right or wrong...Probably should pin this and wait!


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> That massive a fraud MUST bother someone's conscious.  Have you found anyone confessing to it yet?  Do you actually have any evidence that the data were adjusted without cause?  It seems over and over again that your only complaint is that it's going in a direction you don't like.  However, plenty of adjustments have tended to reduce warming.  You just don't like to talk about those.



We had a big discussion on that topic...you were shown several examples of climate pseudoscientists admitting to fudging, fabricating, and altering data in their private correspondence....you claimed that they were joking.....you are the joke...


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2016)

Markle said:


> *Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records*
> 
> by JAMES DELINGPOLE28 Apr 20161,726
> 
> ...



Here is a bit more ice fraud....this by UCI....

UCI News - Massive northeast Greenland glacier is rapidly melting, UCI-led team finds

The only problem with the research is that it is a complete lie...here are some photos...  In fact, it appears that the glacier may have grown just a bit...did the UCI team retract their false claim?....of course not...they got the headlines and then made no attempt to correct when nature refused to agree with their findings...much like the rest of climate pseudoscience....chalk up one more failure for the models and climate pseudoscience.


----------



## Crick (May 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > That massive a fraud MUST bother someone's conscious.  Have you found anyone confessing to it yet?  Do you actually have any evidence that the data were adjusted without cause?  It seems over and over again that your only complaint is that it's going in a direction you don't like.  However, plenty of adjustments have tended to reduce warming.  You just don't like to talk about those.
> ...



You lie.  I was shown statements by various people which you attempted to interpret as admissions of such behavior but they were nothing of the kind.  You completely failed to produce such a statement.  Feel free to try again.


----------



## SSDD (May 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




Sorry crick...you were the one doing the interpreting...the statements were perfectly straight forward admissions to fabricating data...here, let me refresh your memory....and your interpretation may be interesting to those who missed it the first time...

For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there..   Phil Jones



Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with the early release of information (via Australia), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature, etc., etc.?
I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time....Geoff Jenkins

So tell us again crick how they weren't actually saying what they clearly said....


----------



## IanC (May 2, 2016)

Markle said:


> *Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records*
> 
> by JAMES DELINGPOLE28 Apr 20161,726
> 
> ...





this is a great story to illustrate what has been going on in climate science for quite some time now...

a new methodology is developed in the model for determining ice thickness, and as usual 'things are worse than we thought'. the new data are publicized and the old data disappears down the memory hole (in this case even the wayback machine has been disabled).

I am obviously not qualified to determine which method is superior, or even if one is superior to the other. but it seems odd that all the changes seem to be in the direction of exacerbating the description of climate change. and then making the old data difficult or impossible to access.


----------



## mamooth (May 2, 2016)

IanC said:


> I am obviously not qualified to determine which method is superior, or even if one is superior to the other. but it seems odd that all the changes seem to be in the direction of exacerbating the description of climate change. and then making the old data difficult or impossible to access.



Yet you always  leave out the fact the that the overall temperature adjustments have made the warming look smaller, a simple point that completely destroys your conspiracy theory.

How do you justify engaging in such brazen cherrypicking, and then immediately accusing the ethical people of using your own signature tactic of brazen cherrypicking?

To be fair, cherrypicking isn't your only tactic. Like most deniers, you're also an ad hom specialist.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 2, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


I see. You are going to side with this increase in temperature?
UAH Global Temperature for March Down Slightly







Nice to see that you are finally acknowledging reality.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > *Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records*
> ...


My, my, looks, by the snow cover, like the photos were taken at differant times of the year. You do realize such bullshit as that is just another form of lying.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> We had a big discussion on that topic...you were shown several examples of climate pseudoscientists admitting to fudging, fabricating, and altering data in their private correspondence....you claimed that they were joking.....you are the joke...



You are referring to the stolen "Climategate" e mails which supposedly showed fraud.  It has been investigated at least six different times INDEPENDENTLY and no such thing has been shown in fact the Scientist were cleared...
*Climategate Scientist Cleared in Inquiry, Again - Scientific*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 2, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Sorry crick...you were the one doing the interpreting...the statements were perfectly straight forward admissions to fabricating data...here, let me refresh your memory....and your interpretation may be interesting to those who missed it the first time...
> ..


*What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?*

In November 2009, the servers at the University of East Anglia in Britain were illegally hacked and emails were stolen. When a selection of emails betweenclimatescientists were published on the internet, a few suggestive quotes were seized upon by many claiming global warming was all just a conspiracy. A number of independent enquiries have investigated the conduct of the scientists involved in the emails. All have cleared the scientists of any wrong doing:


*In February 2010, the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that"there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data"*. On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded_"The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field."_
*In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee** published a report* finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s *"Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community"*.
In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The *Report of the International Panel* assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found*"no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".*
In June 2010, the Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining_"there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann"_.
In July 2010, the University of East Anglia published the *IndependentClimate Change Email Review report.* They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that*"we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."*
*In July 2010, the** US Environmental Protection Agency investigated the emails* and_"found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets."_
In September 2010, the* UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, *chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found_"In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data"_. On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found_"_*The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".*
In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found*"no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data".*
In August 2011, the *National Science Foundation concluded*_*"*Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed"._


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 2, 2016)

Markle said:


> *Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records*
> 
> by JAMES DELINGPOLE28 Apr 20161,726


This is your expert a non Scientist




* James Delingpole*
* Credentials*
* Degree in English Literature.

Here is a Key quote from James Delingpole himself
“It is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers because I simply haven't got the time … I am an interpreter of interpretations.” [4]“[URL='http://youtu.be/0wmuhKzYp4s?t=1m26s']Climate change denier James Delingpole doesn't do science,” YouTube Video uploaded by user “sciencenotvoodo0” on January 25, 2011. Adapted from BBC one's “Science Under Attack.”[/URL]

Another Key quote
“I feel a bit of an imposter talking about the science. I'm not a scientist, you may be aware. I read English Literature.” [5]“[URL='http://climateconferences.heartland.org/james-delingpole-iccc6/']James Delingpole, ICCC6,” Viddler video retrieved from climateconference.heartland.org. Uploaded July 21, 2011.[/URL]
*


----------



## IanC (May 3, 2016)

mamooth said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I am obviously not qualified to determine which method is superior, or even if one is superior to the other. but it seems odd that all the changes seem to be in the direction of exacerbating the description of climate change. and then making the old data difficult or impossible to access.
> ...





you always bring up the same point, yet you are unwilling to discuss the details of it. yes indeed a large downward correction was made to the early ocean temperature record, mostly to correct for bucket measurements. this correction was installed by the early 90's, and the models' hindcasting would be crippled without it.

what I dont understand is why you think that a reasonably legitimate correction put in place over twenty years ago makes up for and excuses all the other arbitrary changes since then that have all increased the trend and/or changed the shape of the trend.


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > We had a big discussion on that topic...you were shown several examples of climate pseudoscientists admitting to fudging, fabricating, and altering data in their private correspondence....you claimed that they were joking.....you are the joke...
> ...



Here are a couple of the quotes I provided to crick...his interpretation of what these scientists clearly said was hilarious....lets hear what you think they are saying....


For much of the SH between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is very little ship data there.. Phil Jones

Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with the early release of information (via Australia), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature, etc., etc.? I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time....Geoff Jenkins

Clearly the "investigations"...and the "investigators" either weren't on the ball, or had a serious bias problem...the two quotes above are clear statements of data fabrication.


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry crick...you were the one doing the interpreting...the statements were perfectly straight forward admissions to fabricating data...here, let me refresh your memory....and your interpretation may be interesting to those who missed it the first time...
> ...



Can't help but notice that you deliberately left off the quotes from your reply...that is your answer?....simply ignore the clear statements of data fabrication and go on with the claims that the investigators didn't manipulate data?  That is not as funny as crick's "rationalization"  but it does typify the warmer mindset...


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > *Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records*
> ...



Got anything like an actual rebuttal to his claims...or is an ad hominem attack the best you can do?  Again, typical warmer mind set...ignore the data...call names and divert from the actual topic because we all know that there is no actual answer coming from you guys on the actual topic.


----------



## IanC (May 3, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry crick...you were the one doing the interpreting...the statements were perfectly straight forward admissions to fabricating data...here, let me refresh your memory....and your interpretation may be interesting to those who missed it the first time...
> ...




you obviously have not looked into any of the 'Inquiries'. one of the most egregious emails pertained to Jones sending out a missive warning his companions that worked on AR4 to delete their correspondence because it appeared that FOI requests for them were coming. Jones and the others named were NEVER asked if they had deleted (or moved) that correspondence, or to prove that it was still there unchanged.


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2016)

IanC said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Seems that climate science is about as good at investigating bad science by its practitioners as it is at climate science itself...that is....very bad...

They only look at whatever is on the approved reading list handed out by their high priests...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Seems that climate science is about as good at investigating bad science by its practitioners as it is at climate science itself...that is....very bad...
> 
> They only look at whatever is on the approved reading list handed out by their high priests...



Other than your opinion, which is worthless, do you have links or information that can be analyzed, that shows the investigations , all six of them, were not independent ...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 3, 2016)

IanC said:


> you obviously have not looked into any of the 'Inquiries'. one of the most egregious emails pertained to Jones sending out a missive warning his companions that worked on AR4 to delete their correspondence because it appeared that FOI requests for them were coming. Jones and the others named were NEVER asked if they had deleted (or moved) that correspondence, or to prove that it was still there unchanged.




I read what you wrote..*.what is your source for saying he was not asked certain questions...can you link me to your sources...otherwise I am thinking you are just making shit up.*.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Got anything like an actual rebuttal to his claims...or is an ad hominem attack the best you can do?  Again, typical warmer mind set...ignore the data...call names and divert from the actual topic because we all know that there is no actual answer coming from you guys on the actual topic.



*Sure when the claim comes from a credible source* sure I can rebut...but this dude this expert you all got is an English teacher who does not have time to look at Science [peer reviewed papers]...here is your great source  in his own words once again...have you ever wondered why you all have to cite rubbish peddling bums like this asshole James Delingpole and I get to post links to real Scientist and real sources...You do know Delingpole is riffing off a Steve Goddard report that has been debunked  right you read the Delingpole article right ? I did 

*I feel a bit of an imposter talking about the science. I'm not a scientist, you may be aware. I read English Literature.” [5]“James Delingpole, ICCC6,” Viddler video retrieved from climateconference.heartland.org. Uploaded July 21, 2011.*
*“It is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers because I simply haven't got the time … I am an interpreter of interpretations.” [4]“Climate change denier James Delingpole doesn't do science,” YouTube Video uploaded by user “sciencenotvoodo0” on January 25, 2011. Adapted from BBC one's “Science Under Attack.”*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Can't help but notice that you deliberately left off the quotes from your reply...that is your answer?....simply ignore the clear statements of data fabrication and go on with the claims that the investigators didn't manipulate data?  That is not as funny as crick's "rationalization"  but it does typify the warmer mindset...


 You are just repeating yourself...there were at least six investigations of the claims of fraud...six investigations and ZERO evidence of Fraud...ZERO evidence of Scientific fraud...*embrace it accept it get over it*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Clearly the "investigations"...and the "investigators" either weren't on the ball, or had a serious bias problem...the two quotes above are clear statements of data fabrication.


They should have had an "Einstein" like you in charge...LOL you are not on the ball...link to anyone who says they were sham investigation ...link to a source that says that other than you because YOU ARE NOT CREDIBLE as a source to take down NOAA NASA the whole science behind AGW


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with the early release of information (via Australia), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature, etc., etc.? I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time....Geoff Jenkins
> 
> Clearly the "investigations"...and the "investigators" either weren't on the ball, or had a serious bias problem...the two quotes above are clear statements of data fabrication.


*That was investigated yes ...all the Investigations concluded no fraud...do I have to link again ? *


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 3, 2016)

The English teacher Climate expert you all put up is really writing about something reported by Steven Goddard [read the article by the English teacher ] ...here is some information on Goddard
Steven Goddard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*Sea ice[edit]*
*One of Goddard's earliest writings, an article for The Register, asserted that the National Snow and Ice Data Center's (NSIDC) data underlying a chart depicting 2008 Arctic sea iceloss was incorrect and that NSIDC seemed to demonstrate "a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss."*[3]Ten days later, however, *Goddard acknowledged that the data on which the graph was based was accurate*.[4]In 2012, another of Goddard's blog posts attracted attention. The post argued that increases in Antarctic sea ice balanced out decreases in Arctic sea ice, and accused the NSIDC of being "dissonant" about the topic.

Mark Serreze, director of the NSIDC, responded to the post by saying that the increases in Antarctic sea ice were "not a surprise to us".[5]

*Claims of NASA manipulation of temperature data[edit]*
In June 2014, *Goddard attracted considerable media attention for his claims that NASA had manipulated temperature data to make it appear that 1998 was the hottest year in United States history*. In fact, he claimed, it was 1934, but NASA had started incorrectly citing 1998 as the hottest year beginning in 2000.[6]Goddard had been promoting these claims for years before this, including in a chapter of a book by Don Easterbrook,[7] but the mainstream media had not paid significant attention to it before then.[8]Those who promoted the claim included Christopher Booker, in a June 21 article in the Daily Telegraph,[9]andFox News Channel hostSteve Doocy three days later in a Fox and Friends segment.

The claim was dismissed by Politifact.com, which rated it as "pants on fire"—its lowest possible rating. Politifact contacted Berkeley Earth energy systems analyst and environmental economist Zeke Hausfather,[10]who told them that the problem with Goddard's analysis was that it ignored the changes the network of U.S. weather stations had undergone over the last eighty years.[11]Goddard's claims were also criticized by fellow climate skeptic Anthony Watts, who argued that his assertions of data fabrication were "wrong", and criticized him for using absolute temperatures rather than anomalies in his analysis.[12]

In a response to Politifact on his blog, Goddard argued that while NASA has official reasons for the adjustments they make to temperature data, "their adjustments are highly subjective, and are subject to software and algorithm errors. Politifact’s claim is the result of a failure to understand the topic, for the following reasons. There is no question that the temperature record has been dramatically altered, to turn a long term cooling trend into a long term warming trend. No one disputes this. Anthony Watts was discussing a different specific topic related to missing station data, and has since admitted he was wrong. If you actually contact him, you will find that out."[13]

Noted global warming skeptic Judith Curry characterized Goddard's analysis of NASA's data as "bogus."[14]


----------



## sealybobo (May 3, 2016)

Matthew said:


> *You skeptics and deniers often say why don't we warmers make predictions that are in the short term so we can be called out for them? Well, I am going to make a few and tie them in with the enso. I am making a assumption that the global temperature will be .05-.1c warmer based on the giss dataset then we were pre-2015-2016 nino. I will put my credibility on the line and I want a mod to pin this at the top of this forum for skeptics/deniers to rip me apart when I get it wrong! *
> 
> *When will I be wrong? *
> 1. IF we see a moderate nina year that turns out to be .56 or .58c...That is wrong. Rip me a part as a idiot!
> ...


Jimmy Kimmel went off on Sarah Palin and Gw deniers last night. He explained how 97% of climate scientists believe it's human caused.

And these scientists have no hidden agenda. The only ones lying are the politicians who are paid by rich polluters so that they continue to deny.

Deniers are stupid and make me sick


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 3, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > *You skeptics and deniers often say why don't we warmers make predictions that are in the short term so we can be called out for them? Well, I am going to make a few and tie them in with the enso. I am making a assumption that the global temperature will be .05-.1c warmer based on the giss dataset then we were pre-2015-2016 nino. I will put my credibility on the line and I want a mod to pin this at the top of this forum for skeptics/deniers to rip me apart when I get it wrong! *
> ...




It always amuses me how the AGW cult mixes pollution and climate change in the one topic, Damn are they that stupid they don't know the difference? 


.


----------



## sealybobo (May 3, 2016)

Republicans will swallow and repeat whatever their rich masters tell them.


----------



## sealybobo (May 3, 2016)

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


That pollution is causing gw


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 3, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > *You skeptics and deniers often say why don't we warmers make predictions that are in the short term so we can be called out for them? Well, I am going to make a few and tie them in with the enso. I am making a assumption that the global temperature will be .05-.1c warmer based on the giss dataset then we were pre-2015-2016 nino. I will put my credibility on the line and I want a mod to pin this at the top of this forum for skeptics/deniers to rip me apart when I get it wrong! *
> ...




So silly boo, if 97% of climate scientist agree and 150 plus country's signed it who has more money backing the JUNK science?????


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 3, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




Then get rid of your ATV.... Lead by example.


----------



## sealybobo (May 3, 2016)

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


I for one won't take you seriously. It's like arguing with a Flat earther


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 3, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




Says the idiot who didn't even know mars was 4.5 billion years old




.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 3, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Republicans will swallow and repeat whatever their rich masters tell them.




No we read science books, news reports go the fuck outside.



.


----------



## IanC (May 3, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > you obviously have not looked into any of the 'Inquiries'. one of the most egregious emails pertained to Jones sending out a missive warning his companions that worked on AR4 to delete their correspondence because it appeared that FOI requests for them were coming. Jones and the others named were NEVER asked if they had deleted (or moved) that correspondence, or to prove that it was still there unchanged.
> ...




I bumped a thread for you with the british parliamentry inquiry into the inquiries


----------



## IanC (May 3, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> The English teacher Climate expert you all put up is really writing about something reported by Steven Goddard [read the article by the English teacher ] ...here is some information on Goddard
> Steven Goddard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> *Sea ice[edit]*
> *One of Goddard's earliest writings, an article for The Register, asserted that the National Snow and Ice Data Center's (NSIDC) data underlying a chart depicting 2008 Arctic sea iceloss was incorrect and that NSIDC seemed to demonstrate "a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss."*[3]Ten days later, however, *Goddard acknowledged that the data on which the graph was based was accurate*.[4]In 2012, another of Goddard's blog posts attracted attention. The post argued that increases in Antarctic sea ice balanced out decreases in Arctic sea ice, and accused the NSIDC of being "dissonant" about the topic.
> ...





perhaps you should read this Curry article on Steve Goddard. he has indeed made mistakes but that doesnt mean everything he says is a mistake.  Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 3, 2016)

IanC said:


> perhaps you should read this Curry article on Steve Goddard. he has indeed made mistakes but that doesnt mean everything he says is a mistake.  Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right?




You should read up on science so you do not have to end up quoting English teachers ...as though they were Climate experts...


----------



## IanC (May 3, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > perhaps you should read this Curry article on Steve Goddard. he has indeed made mistakes but that doesnt mean everything he says is a mistake.  Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right?
> ...





the thing is....I have read the science. the main core of skeptics don't disbelieve the basic physics behind AGW, they disbelieve the exaggerated claims and conclusions that are given to the media to scare people into giving up their money and lifestyle for little-to-no effect.


----------



## sealybobo (May 3, 2016)

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


I already told you I just threw out that number.  1 million, 5 billion.  I think you get the point.  The point is you are utterly stupid.

Listen to these climate scientists and tell me you aren't a fucking retard


----------



## sealybobo (May 3, 2016)

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans will swallow and repeat whatever their rich masters tell them.
> ...


97% of climate scientists say you and Sarah Palin are fucking morons.  Who am I to disagree with them?

And who are you to disagree with them?  Who do you think is paying politicians like Sarah Palin to pretend to be stupid?

The two columns below show quotes (left column) from Sarah Palin paired with what the science says (right column). Click on text in right column for full details.

Climate Myths from Sarah Palin


----------



## mamooth (May 3, 2016)

IanC said:


> You always bring up the same point, yet you are unwilling to discuss the details of it. yes indeed a large downward correction was made to the early ocean temperature record, mostly to correct for bucket measurements. this correction was installed by the early 90's, and the models' hindcasting would be crippled without it.



No, I've pointed out before how that red herring in no way contradicts my point, and how it still destroys your conspiracy theory.

It doesn't matter why the corrections were made .The point is they _were_ made. If the scientists were out to show more warming, why did they put in corrections to show less warming? If you claim scientists are now happily revising all the data, why don't they revise those older corrections right out?

Your conspiracy theory makes no sense at all.



> what I dont understand is why you think that a reasonably legitimate correction put in place over twenty years ago



That illustrates how cultists see the science. In their minds, all corrections going one way are automatically "good science", and all going the other way are "fraud". In contrast, all the honest scientists accept all the corrections going both ways, even though it makes the warming look smaller.



> makes up for and excuses all the other arbitrary changes



It's also a staple cult tactic to claim that any change they don't like is "arbitrary", while the ones they do like are "necessary".



> since then that have all increased the trend and/or changed the shape of the trend.



Well, yes, every adjustment changes the shape of the trend. They have to. In the cultist, anything and everything is now auto-defined as proof of conspiracy.


----------



## mamooth (May 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Got anything like an actual rebuttal to his claims..



Sure. This busts Tony Heller's latest fraud most convincingly.

“Steve Goddard” Busted | The Great White Con

We know what you'll do now. It's the same thing you always do. You're just going to scream insults at the author, and at me, as a way to cover your screaming retreat.


----------



## mamooth (May 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Clearly the "investigations"...and the "investigators" either weren't on the ball, or had a serious bias problem...the two quotes above are clear statements of data fabrication.



No, they're clearly jokes, and you're clearly desperately dishonest.

It is amusing though, how upset you get that nobody believes all your crazy lies. That would be all you're good for now, the amusement factor.


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Got anything like an actual rebuttal to his claims..
> ...




So data manipulation is the problem with the graph...ok...that's what we have been saying all along...


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly the "investigations"...and the "investigators" either weren't on the ball, or had a serious bias problem...the two quotes above are clear statements of data fabrication.
> ...



Really?  Scientists "joke" about fabricating data?  What exactly is funny about fabricating data?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 3, 2016)

IanC said:


> perhaps you should read this Curry article on Steve Goddard. he has indeed made mistakes but that doesnt mean everything he says is a mistake.  Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right?


Steve Goddard is corrupt ? he has a vested interest in denying ?  LOL that is not his real name ...he uses Goddard to associate with a real Scientist [Robert Goddard Rocket Scientist] .....his real name is Tony Heller..


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


The issue has been investigated into the ground ...no fraud none ...no charges..no one censored no one fired no one rebuked ...


----------



## Old Rocks (May 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


But no links to where those quotes are found? Hmmmm...............................................   More smart photons.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 3, 2016)

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans will swallow and repeat whatever their rich masters tell them.
> ...


Like hell you do, you silly ass. If you did, you would know the basis in physics why GHGs heat up our atmosphere and oceans. The scientists have for many decades now been predicting a warmer Earth, and that is what we see happening. In the meantime, the frauds and charlatans paid by Exxon-Mobile have been saying that it is all baloney, and the earth will be cooling.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 3, 2016)

IanC said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


LOL. Read the science and still make consistently wrong predictions. The ice is melting far faster than the 'alarmist' predictions, the world is warming faster than their predictions, and the sea level rise is greater than what they predicted. That is the fact of what we are seeing.

Were this not so, you would not quote assholes like 'Goddard' who is not even publishing under his real name. And you would be quoting real scientists, not frauds like the English teacher.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 3, 2016)

*The article below highlights what can happen when honest Scientist who believe in AGW are subjected to character assassination *
*Climate Scientist Wins $50000 In Libel Lawsuit*
_A prominent Canadian climatologist won his libel lawsuit against The National Post on Friday, after a judgedecidedthat the newspaper had published several articles that were both inaccurate and defamatory to his character._

_British Columbia Supreme Court Justice Emily Burke said that Dr. Andrew Weaver should be awarded $50,000 in damages from the Post, which she said unfairly diminished Weaver’s credibility as a climate scientist by publishing articles that falsely painted Weaver as incompetent. The articles claimed that* Weaver, a former member of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), *was “untrustworthy, unscientific and incompetent; and that *he distorts and conceals scientific data *to promote a public agenda and receive government funding.”_

_The decision did not touch on the accuracy of climate science itself, instead focusing on statements the Post and its columnists repeatedly made about Weaver — such as claims that he was *attempting to distract the public from a (now-discredited) scandal involving climate scientists e-mails;* that Weaver was a government employee; that he wanted the head of the IPCC to step down; and that* he used data despite knowing it was “unadulterated rubbish.” Justice Burke found that those statements were either untrue or misleading.*_

_In fact, the opinion defended the Post’s right to be skeptical of climate science, but said the Post was not being honest in its skepticism. “While certainly entitled to express those views, in this case as part of that expression, they deliberately created a negative impression of Dr. Weaver,” Burke wrote. “In doing so, I conclude t*he defendants have been careless or indifferent to the accuracy of the facts.”*_


----------



## SSDD (May 3, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



Email 2729 for the Phil Jones quote...

November 22, 1996: email 0848679780

Geoff Jenkins was head of climate change prediction at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, part of the United Kingdom’s Met(eorological) Office (nationalweather service). He writes to Phil Jones:

Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with the early release of information (via Australia), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature, etc., etc.?  I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time. 

So there are your sources rocks...now what is your "interpretation" of the clear statements of data fabrication.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 3, 2016)

link


----------



## SSDD (May 4, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> link



Find it yourself skid mark....or whine a bit more abut the mean old skeptics not providing links and maybe I will provide a link just to show how inept you are at finding anything for yourself...

Or commit to agreeing that climate scientists do in fact fabricate data if I provide a link to the emails...but I would prefer to hear you whine...and demonstrate that you can't look up anything for yourself...


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 4, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *The article below highlights what can happen when honest Scientist who believe in AGW are subjected to character assassination *
> *Climate Scientist Wins $50000 In Libel Lawsuit*
> _A prominent Canadian climatologist won his libel lawsuit against The National Post on Friday, after a judgedecidedthat the newspaper had published several articles that were both inaccurate and defamatory to his character._
> 
> ...




Canada ? Seriously ? Hey how is Micheal Mann's lawsuit going, it has been around 4 years now.


----------



## Crick (May 4, 2016)

Four years longer than his detractors wanted it to go.  The question should be how goes Steyn's and the Review's attempts to get out of the thing?  The answer to that would be "not at all well".


----------



## skookerasbil (May 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> Four years longer than his detractors wanted it to go.  The question should be how goes Steyn's and the Review's attempts to get out of the thing?  The answer to that would be "not at all well".




The real question is in a non-makey-uppey world is.........does anybody care?

Nobody is caring according to EVERY poll!!!

Worry About Terror Attacks in U.S. High, but Not Top Concern


Have to scroll waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down the list of concerns to find climate change!!!



[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Trump.jpg.html]
	
[/URL]


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> Four years longer than his detractors wanted it to go.  The question should be how goes Steyn's and the Review's attempts to get out of the thing?  The answer to that would be "not at all well".




Thanks, I have a new book going to have to read


Mark Steyn’s new book on Michael Mann

From climate scientists, all of whom support the general consensus on climate change:

*Wallace Broecker:* _“The goddam guy is a slick talker and super-confident. He won’t listen to anyone else,” one of climate science’s most senior figures, Wally Broecker of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in New York, told me. “I don’t trust people like that. A lot of the data sets he uses are shitty, you know. They are just not up to what he is trying to do…. *If anyone deserves to get hit it is goddam Mann.*”

_
*duardo Zorita:*_ Why I Think That Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf2 Should be Barred from the IPCC Process. Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore. These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed._

*Atte Korhola:*_ Another example is a study recently published in the prestigious journal Science. Proxies have been included selectively, they have been digested, manipulated, filtered, and combined – for example, data collected from Finland in the past by my own colleagues has even been turned upside down such that the warm periods become cold and vice versa. Normally, this would be considered as a scientific forgery, which has serious consequences._

*Hans von Storch:*_ A conclusion could be that the principle, according to which data must be made public, so that also adversaries may check the analysis, must be really enforced. Another conclusion could be that scientists like Mike Mann, Phil Jones and others should no longer participate in the peer-review process or in assessment activities like IPCC._

*Bo Christiansen: *_The hockey-stick curve does not stand. It does not mean that we cancel the manmade greenhouse effect, but the causes have become more nuanced… Popularly, it can be said that the flat piece on the hockey stick is too flat. In addition, their method contains a large element of randomness. It is almost impossible to conclude from reconstruction studies that the present period is warmer than any period in the reconstructed period.


.._


----------



## jc456 (May 4, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Old socks, funny stuff bubba.  How many threads has it been in the Environmental Forum and you have yet to provide any evidence to support this paragraph.  I've explained to you that first, the IPCC AR5 report agrees there was a pause for 15 years while CO2 was increasing. Baddaboom, kills the hypothesis of CO2 causes warming immediately. Why do you ignore that fact?  And then you claim GHGs heat up our atmosphere and we've asked you for that hot spot.  Still crickets bubba.  So, for the umpteenth hundred and whatever time, where is your support at to back your paragraph? Thanks and have a nice day!


----------



## jc456 (May 4, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


nope, and you can't validate --"*The ice is melting far faster than the 'alarmist' predictions, the world is warming faster than their predictions, and the sea level rise is greater than what they predicted. That is the fact of what we are seeing*"


----------



## SSDD (May 6, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



And yet no one ever asked if emails were deleted in anticipation of FOI requests...what sort of investigation is that?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 6, 2016)

> And yet no one ever asked if emails were deleted in anticipation of FOI requests...what sort of investigation is that?


Do you have any source any link anyone who is saying the Investigations were crooked..*.there were at least 6 investigations *by agencies both in the US and in Cuba...how was this secxondary cover up LOL coordinated...on its own...did they instinctual come to the same conclusions , did they coordinate this effort...you'll are fools ...you think simply saying something makes it so...I say things but I provide link to sources...you all think simply making declarations cuts it ...


----------



## SSDD (May 6, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> > And yet no one ever asked if emails were deleted in anticipation of FOI requests...what sort of investigation is that?
> 
> 
> Do you have any source any link anyone who is saying the Investigations were crooked..*.there were at least 6 investigations *by agencies both in the US and in Cuba...how was this secxondary cover up LOL coordinated...on its own...did they instinctual come to the same conclusions , did they coordinate this effort...you'll are fools ...you think simply saying something makes it so...I say things but I provide link to sources...you all think simply making declarations cuts it ...




All one need do is follow the money...  You are going to believe what you want and you are going to believe it based on your political leanings regardless of the actual facts...if that is the extent of your intellectual ability....it must suck to be you.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 6, 2016)

SSDD said:


> All one need do is follow the money...


*They have made it harder to do that *
*"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American*
*The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to ananalysisreleased Friday afternoon.*

*The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.*

*It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.*

*In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.*

*Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.*

*The study was published Friday in the journalClimatic Change.*


*Did ExxonMobil Just Admit It's StillFundingClimate Science Deniers?
*


----------



## Markle (May 6, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with the early release of information (via Australia), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature, etc., etc.? I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time....Geoff Jenkins
> ...



The investigations, as you know, were conducted by groups who benefit from unlimited taxpayer funded grants.  No global warming, no jobs.

*The Climategate Whitewash Continues*
*Global warming alarmists claim vindication after last year's data manipulation scandal. Don't believe the 'independent' reviews.*

By 
PATRICK J. MICHAELS
Updated July 12, 2010 12:01 a.m. ET

Last November there was a world-wide outcry when a trove of emails were released suggesting some of the world's leading climate scientists engaged in professional misconduct, data manipulation and jiggering of both the scientific literature and climatic data to paint what scientist Keith Briffa called "a nice, tidy story" of climate history. The scandal became known as Climategate.

Now a supposedly independent review of the evidence says, in effect, "nothing to see here." Last week "The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review," commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia, exonerated the University of East Anglia. The review committee was chaired by Sir Muir Russell, former vice chancellor at the University of Glasgow.

Read more at:
The Climategate Whitewash Continues


----------



## Markle (May 6, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > *You skeptics and deniers often say why don't we warmers make predictions that are in the short term so we can be called out for them? Well, I am going to make a few and tie them in with the enso. I am making a assumption that the global temperature will be .05-.1c warmer based on the giss dataset then we were pre-2015-2016 nino. I will put my credibility on the line and I want a mod to pin this at the top of this forum for skeptics/deniers to rip me apart when I get it wrong! *
> ...



How amusing.

Once again the Progressives and the Global Warming eccentrics boast as to their source of "facts"from a comedian.  I am so impressed.

I presume that you are aware that the hoax of 97% is just that, a hoax.

On the surface, even you have to admit that no one could get 97% of any group to agree on the color of the sky much less anything so complex as the myth of Global Warming.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 7, 2016)

I assume that you know you are lying.

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements the state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Now you are stating that all these scientists around the world are in on a grand conspiracy to fool us all. Hope you have plenty of aluminum foil for your hats.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 7, 2016)

The scientists since 1896 have been predicting warming if we continued to put GHGs into the atmosphere. And that is exactly what we are seeing. An increasing warming, and effect from the warming becoming increasingly obvious. From melting glaciers to increased ferocity of wildfires. But all you deniers can do is flap yap and deny reality.


----------



## SSDD (May 7, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> I assume that you know you are lying.
> 
> Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements the state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Now you are stating that all these scientists around the world are in on a grand conspiracy to fool us all. Hope you have plenty of aluminum foil for your hats.



And yet, there exists not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered out in the observable, measurable, quantifiable world that supports the A in AGW....what sort of faith should that engender in such organizations?  Clearly they have become far more political than scientific...


----------



## Old Rocks (May 7, 2016)

LOL. Dumb fuck SSDD once again denies the reality of the absorption spectra of the GHGs. Well, he never was the sharpest knife in the drawer. How's those sentient photons doing, SSDD?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 7, 2016)

Markle said:


> By
> PATRICK J. MICHAELS
> Updated July 12, 2010 12:01 a.m. ET
> 
> The Climategate Whitewash Continues


Three things
1) the article is over 5 years old...the so called scandal is totally debunked
2) the bulk this man's education is in Biology
3) Follow the money that pays him

*This is a paid mercenary hack shill certainly no one that should be accusing Science of fraud..............*


* Patrick J. Michaels*
* Credentials*

*S.M. Biology, University of Chicago (1975).*
*Biological Sciences, University of Chicago (1971).*
Special Graduate Committee on Ecological Climatology (1979).
*Source: *[1]

* Background*
Pat Michaels is the director of the Center for the Study of Science at the conservative Cato Institute. Michaels is a regular commentator on climate change issues on _Fox News_ and other conservative news outlets.

He also writes regularly for _Forbes_, contributes opinion articles to US newspapers and has written several books sceptical of climate change science and the risks of rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Michaels' columns also regularly suggest climate scientists who accept the risks of rising greenhouse gas emissions are being influenced by the availability of taxpayer funds.

Michaels has a history of carrying out work on climate change shown to have been funded by fossil fuel interests.

He was the founder of a consulting firm titled New Hope Environmental Services. Michaels described (PDF) the firm's purpose as to “publicize findings on climate change and scientific and social perspectives that may not otherwise appear in the popular literature or media. This entails both response research and public commentary.” [2]

SourceWatch describes New Hope Environmental Services as “in effect … a PR firm.” New Hope is secretive about its funding sources, and fought a Greenpeace motion seeking disclosure.  It is known to have received funds from electrical utilities in the past.

New Hope Environmental Services also ran a climate change bulletin titled _The World Climate Report_ which was edited by Patrick Michaels and funded by coal group Western Fuels Association. 

Analysis of the tax records of the Cato Institute found that in 2006 and 2007 the think tank paid Michaels' New Hope more than $240,000 in fees.

Michaels once estimated that “40 percent” of his funding comes from the oil industry. [3] 

Pat Michaels was a “member scientist” at The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASCC), an organization created and funded by the tobacco industry to fight anti-tobacco legislation.

Michaels was also an “Academic Member” of the European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF), a group created by the tobacco industry to frame legitimate science as “junk science” on matters pertaining to health and environment, particularly secondhand smoke health impacts. Michaels was listed as an academic member on the ESEF's March 1998 working paper titled “Environmental Tobacco Smoke Revisited: The reliability of the evidence for risk of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease.” [41]


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 7, 2016)

Markle said:


> I presume that you are aware that the hoax of 97% is just that, a hoax.



*I have sources that say otherwise...what are your sources ?*




Consensus confirmed: 97% of climate scientists agree


----------



## jc456 (May 7, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Dumb fuck SSDD once again denies the reality of the absorption spectra of the GHGs. Well, he never was the sharpest knife in the drawer. How's those sentient photons doing, SSDD?


I wish you would get it straight what the argument is.we know there are green house gases that isn't the argument and you know what is the argument


----------



## SSDD (May 7, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Dumb fuck SSDD once again denies the reality of the absorption spectra of the GHGs. Well, he never was the sharpest knife in the drawer. How's those sentient photons doing, SSDD?



Absorption and emission does not equal warming rocks....but feel free to provide some evidence that proves otherwise...


----------



## SSDD (May 7, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > I presume that you are aware that the hoax of 97% is just that, a hoax.
> ...



Upon what observed, measured, quantified evidence is that agreement based?   There is none, so what else might bring about such an agreement....a big old bucket full of money would facilitate that sort of agreement even more than hard scientific evidence if any even existed...what sort of faith should one put in science that can reach such an agreement with no actual observed, measured, quantified evidence to support their hypothesis?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



Read the links provided for that information


----------



## Markle (May 8, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> I assume that you know you are lying.
> 
> Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements the state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Now you are stating that all these scientists around the world are in on a grand conspiracy to fool us all. Hope you have plenty of aluminum foil for your hats.



Yep, just follow the MONEY.







TyroneSlothrop said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > I presume that you are aware that the hoax of 97% is just that, a hoax.
> ...



What a hoot!

A "source" with nothing, whatsoever about where it is based, who runs it or who is the staff.

Keep up the good work.  You're quite a lot of fun!


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



There is no observed, measured, quantified evidence held within the links...but if you think there is,  by all means bring it here so we can all see what passes for observed, measured, quantified evidence in your mind....


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> There is no observed, measured, quantified evidence held within the links...but if you think there is,  by all means bring it here so we can all see what passes for observed, measured, quantified evidence in your mind....




If you have anything other than your opinion which  is irrelevant and uninformed by all means post it

He believes climate change is a hoax – which 70 percent of Americans disagree with – and once tweeted that global warming is a Chinese conspiracy to steal U.S. manufacturing jobs. In the past, he has said that cold and snowy weather disproves climate change. The idea of this man shaping environmental policy should make any sensible American cringe.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 8, 2016)

Markle said:


> ]
> 
> Yep, just follow the MONEY.


You are a lot of fun too Bro .. enjoy
*Exxon Exposed for Spending Millions on Climate Change Denial
Corporate America pays to send global warming deniers to Capitol Hill*
*Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks .*



*Leaked Email Reveals Who's Who List of Climate Denialists ...*
In the months before the debut of the new documentary film "Merchants of Doubt," long-time climate denialist Fred Singer contacted more than two dozen bloggers, public relations specialists and scientists asking for help in derailing the documentary's release.

"Can I sue for damages?" Singer asked in an email last October. "Can we get an injunction against the documentary?"

Singer is one of the "merchants of doubt" identified in the documentary, as are a number of other recipients of his email. The documentary, released nationwide last week, exposes the small network of hired pundits and scientists helping to sow doubt about climate science and delay legislative action on global warming in the United States.

Singer's email became public earlier this week when it was leaked to journalists.

Many of those copied on the email thread, such as Singer and communications specialist Steven Milloy, have financial ties to the tobacco, chemical, and oil and gas industries and have worked to defend them since the 1990s. Others seem relatively new to the denialist camp, such as climate scientist Judith Curry. All, however, have been vocal before Congress, on broadcast news or on the Internet in arguing that human activity is not the primarily driver of climate change.

Here is InsideClimate News' guide to those who were on the emails, in alphabetical order:


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > There is no observed, measured, quantified evidence held within the links...but if you think there is,  by all means bring it here so we can all see what passes for observed, measured, quantified evidence in your mind....
> ...



That's the whole point I am trying to make to you....the AGW scam is nothing but opinion....it isn't based on observed, measured, quantified evidence...it is based on models that fail over and over...  Can you provide any observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis to prove that the whole thing isn't just based on opinion?

Clearly you can't...you make claims that the observed, measured, quantified evidence is in this link, or that link, or the other link...but when asked to bring it here, neither you, nor any of your warmist buds can step up and provide any such data whatsoever...and the ones that do provide something aren't providing data that supports the A in AGW...

Clearly all you have is opinion....I never claimed to have any data....my claim is that it doesn't exist and every post in which you people fail to post it only bolsters my claim...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> That's the whole point I am trying to make to you....the AGW scam is nothing but opinion....it isn't based on observed, measured, quantified evidence...



*AGW is based on Science what you  just said is beyond absurd ...its Just ridiculous ... you explain away the findings of the UK met, The Japan Met, NOAA, NASA and all the others as non Science and a "conspiracy"  without you producing a shred of anything to back it up...*


----------



## SSDD (May 8, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > That's the whole point I am trying to make to you....the AGW scam is nothing but opinion....it isn't based on observed, measured, quantified evidence...
> ...



Science is observation, measurement, quantification, etc....if the anthropogenic component of AGW is base on science, then surely you can provide some observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of that anthropogenic component...If you can't....which is obvious, then you should be wondering why you can't, and exactly what prompted this seeming scientific agreement when no actual observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from out here in the observable, measurable, quantifiable world seems to exist.....then, if you were a thinking person, you would begin to ask yourself what else might bring a large number of people into agreement....and among the few things that might accomplish the task...money....large quantities of money is first on the list....then apply Occam's razor...

By the way...I am not "explaining away" anything....I am asking upon what observed, measured, quantified evidence it is based...and clearly it is based on none because you guys can't produce it and if it existed, there would be no place on earth a skeptic could go to escape it...in fact, if it existed, there would be no skeptics...do you see anyone arguing that there is no gravity, or that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west?.....observation, measurement, and quantification make believers of skeptics in quick time.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...








This cant b true...


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 8, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Got anything like an actual rebuttal to his claims..
> ...



Miriam Obrien's site... HOTWHOOPER.....  is your proof?  Seriously???

And where did they get their so called data?  I dont see any links to their supporting evidence?  Contrived bull shit! and your eating it up...

Steve placed links to his data and methods, why cant you?


----------



## jc456 (May 8, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > That's the whole point I am trying to make to you....the AGW scam is nothing but opinion....it isn't based on observed, measured, quantified evidence...
> ...


Exactly


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Science is observation, measurement, quantification, etc....if the anthropogenic component of AGW is base on science, then surely you can provide some observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of that anthropogenic component...If you can't....which is obvious, .



All of that is contained in the links I provided....all you do is keep repeating your "schtick" that this is not science etc etc ...you never under any circumstance provide anything but your dogged insistence your word is the same as Science...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 8, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


where is your data LOL you are the one making the grand claims that all of Science is corrupt except you...but you provide ZERO DATA ZERO


----------



## Markle (May 8, 2016)

Actually, the FACTS are easy to find.  The AGW's just refuse to acknowledge them.  

*The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'*
*What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?*

By 
JOSEPH BAST And

ROY SPENCER
May 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET
840 COMMENTS

Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy,Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.

Read more at:
The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 8, 2016)

Markle said:


> Actually, the FACTS are easy to find.  The AGW's just refuse to acknowledge them.
> The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'
> What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
> By
> ...


The link is to a Wall Street Editorial and is not an article on facts just opinions ...the same as you all do here on this thread...
*WSJ's shameful climate denial: The scientific consensus*
..........................................
Shoot and a miss: Wall Street Journal op-ed attacks 97% climate consensus | Climate Science Watch
*Attempts to refute the consensus have been widely discredited. Bast and Spencer* reference one *thoroughly debunked “Petition Project”* with *31,000 supposed signatures*. The project contains *numerous false signatories* and its *organizers have admitted “there’s no way of filtering out a fake.”* The project is run by the *Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, * which in the past has argued that nuclear weapon dangers have been exaggerated and that the Y2K bug would end the world. Its leader Art Robinson is skeptical of evolution, HIV-AIDS and believes that* nuclear waste should be used to “enhance” Oregon’s drinking water.*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 8, 2016)

*This is Joseph Bast *

Published a paper denying Global Warming which used the names of dozens of scientists without their permission. *He later conceded that his organization had been wrong to present the scientists as people who personally and professionally doubted the proof of humankind's impact on the climate, though he refused to respond to the demands from dozens of those scientists to have their names removed entirely from the web-published "paper."*
Source: desmogblog.com


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 8, 2016)

*Another global warming contrarian paper found to be unrealistic and Innacurate*

*

What our paper shows is that Spencer and Braswell’s model was flawed on a very basic level, in such a way that it could have predicted wildly low climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases. Whatever sensitivity their model predicts, the true value is probably significantly higher, and therefore probably in the range indicated by the IPCC. 

Spencer and Braswell might object that their paper says ocean temperature measurements “might not provide a very strong constraint on our estimates of climate sensitivity.” Let’s just say that Roy Spencer forgot to include that little detail when he recently told a U.S. Senate committee, “Our most recent peer-reviewed paper on this subject... has arrived at a climate sensitivity of only 1.3 degree C for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, based upon a variety of global measurements, including warming of the global oceans since the 1950s.”

*


----------



## jc456 (May 8, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Dude, seriously, why don't you just post the observed science that you, you claim is happening? Come on man!


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 8, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Dude, seriously, why don't you just post the observed science that you, you claim is happening? Come on man!



Post something that is different from you simply repeating over and over that Science is sham..post a link post something that supports your position


----------



## Old Rocks (May 8, 2016)

Spencer is not only a creationist, he also was caught in an error that was seriously negligent on his part in interpreting the data from the satellites. In fact, Dr. Spencer is one more serious error or omission from suffering the same shunning as Dr. Lindzen. You screw up big time in science, and you lose credibility to the point that you better go to work lying for the Heritage Foundation, because you no longer have credibility in science.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 8, 2016)

The people that want us all to live in the 18th century don't have much sanity or credibility. We'll see how my forecast turns out but I'd bet dollars to donuts that I'll be closer then the ice age freaks. We'd have to cool down globally nearly 1.6c for us to be in the climate little ice(18th century!), while we'd only need to stair step slightly about .1c compared to 2008-2012 temperatures for me to be right in the next 3-6 years under a neutral pattern.


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Science is observation, measurement, quantification, etc....if the anthropogenic component of AGW is base on science, then surely you can provide some observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of that anthropogenic component...If you can't....which is obvious, .
> ...



No it isn't...which is precisely why you aren't copying and pasting as fast as your hands can go to slap me down with the overwhelming mass of observed, measured, quantified data supporting the A in the AGW hypothesis....I don't provide anything because my whole point is that there is nothing to provide....the whole AGW scam is based on models which have been failing miserably for decades...we are, after all, talking about the atmosphere and what goes on in it....all of it being observable, measurable, and quantifiable....and yet, not the first bit of observed, measured quantified evidence....

Keep proving my point by not providing the first shred of actual evidence gathered out in the real world that supports the A in AGW....I understand your reluctance to bring anything here by the way....everything that has been posted as supposed evidence supporting the A in AGW has not....it has been evidence of something, but not evidence supporting the A in AGW...and when asked how they believe the evidence they presented supported the A in AGW....there have been no answers....


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Again...his whole point is that there is no data....we don't need to bring data although the entire history of the earth supports our claims that there is nothing going on in the climate that is even approaching the boundaries of natural variability....you guys are claiming that man is causing global climate change and yet, you can't bring a single piece of observed, measured, quantified data forward to support that claim...we keep asking and you guys keep proving that you can't find it...if any such data existed, there would be no place on earth a skeptic could go to escape it...


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *This is Joseph Bast *
> 
> Published a paper denying Global Warming which used the names of dozens of scientists without their permission. *He later conceded that his organization had been wrong to present the scientists as people who personally and professionally doubted the proof of humankind's impact on the climate, though he refused to respond to the demands from dozens of those scientists to have their names removed entirely from the web-published "paper."*
> Source: desmogblog.com



So what does that have to do with the fact that he is correct on the 97%....or non existence of the 97%?  Logical fallacy is hardly a rational argument...


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, seriously, why don't you just post the observed science that you, you claim is happening? Come on man!
> ...



My position is superbly supported by your inability to provide even the first bit of observed, empirical, quantified evidence to support the A in AGW....that's the whole point....My claim is that there is none...there is nowhere that I can go to get data that does not exist....you claim it does, and that it exists in abundance...so you should be able to provide enough to overwhelm me...and yet, you can't seem to bring the first bit here...that supports my claim in spades...and exposes your claim as clap trap...


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Spencer is not only a creationist, he also was caught in an error that was seriously negligent on his part in interpreting the data from the satellites. In fact, Dr. Spencer is one more serious error or omission from suffering the same shunning as Dr. Lindzen. You screw up big time in science, and you lose credibility to the point that you better go to work lying for the Heritage Foundation, because you no longer have credibility in science.



And yet, the satellite data closely tracks with the radiosonde data....actual thermometers sent up into the atmosphere to take actual measurements....observed, measured, quantified data that jibes closely with spencer's satellite data while your models continue to diverge further and further away from actual observation....THE ATMOSPHERE IS  DENIER......


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> My position is superbly supported.


Your position consists of  endlessly repeating all of science is corrupt and only you know the truth...my position on the other hand is supported by  97 % of Climate scientist, The UK Met agency, The Japan Met Agency, NOAA ,NASA and most other Climate and weather related agencies in the world ...those are the facts..you are isolated


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > *This is Joseph Bast *
> ...


He conflated apples and oranges ...it was amply explained in the link...the issue is "do 97 % of scientist believe in AGW"...the answer is yes...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Again...his whole point is that there is no data......



You have no data ...your position is that if you endlessly repeat that climate science is wrong and you are Right that you do not have to show anything to support that ..just by your saying it  magically it becomes true...*By the way you ought to tell your fellow Republican Global warming is BS *some are taking it quite seriously...maybe you should call them and "tell them the truth " LOL

Go and tel them they are making a big mistake 


WASHINGTON
*S. Florida Republicans lead their party from climate change denial*
Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo and Democratic Rep. Ted Deutch, whose South Florida districts are already enduring increased flooding, salt water intrusion and other effects of rising sea levels, are leading the first truly bipartisan congressional effort to tackle climate change.

Joined by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Miami Republican, they’ve formed a caucus that uses an unusual “buddy system” in which each Democratic member must bring along a Republican colleague *willing to renounce party orthodoxy and stop minimizing the peril – or even existence – of global warming.*


Read more here: S. Florida Republicans lead their party from climate change denial


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> you guys are claiming that man is causing global climate change.


*No one supports your position and much less any data...*
*You guys* is defined by almost all of the Climate Scientist and the following Scientific and Governmental agencies:
Office of Planning and Research - List of Organizations
*List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations. (Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action) ..*


endlessly repeating that you are right and "those guys" are wrong is in a word "stupid"


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> My position is superbly supported ..


I found someone who does support your position



*Tennessee pastor claims *all scientists are abandoning evolution for UFOs and aliens which is God

Roy Spencer abandoned evolution a while back LOL


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...




"Believe" WTF? How about some facts to back up that Belief?

Fucking Cult.



.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

bear513 said:


> "Believe" WTF? How about some facts to back up that Belief?
> 
> Fucking Cult.
> .








_Figure 2: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate changea nd unconvinced by the evidence with a given number of total climate publications(Anderegg 2010)._


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > "Believe" WTF? How about some facts to back up that Belief?
> ...




No matter how much you scream it get back to us with the Questioner of those 97% "scientist" and not some zealot using looking for random terms in papers 


.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

bear513 said:


> No matter how much you scream it get back to us with the Questioner of those 97% "scientist" and not some zealot using looking for random terms in papers
> 
> 
> .


You are just some entitled white Right wing moron ..learn some science  grow up ...idiot LOL






Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record. Data sources: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency.
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

*Errors Cited in Assessing Climate Data - The New York Times*
\
... John R. Christy and_ Roy_ W._Spencer_ of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, conceded yesterday that they had made a _mistake_ 

*Bad Week for Roy “Wrong-Way” Spencer | Climate Denial Crock*

*Roy Spencer's Great Blunder, Part 1 -*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

*Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus*
*AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES*
*Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations*
*"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2*







American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3







*American Chemical Society 

"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4*







*American Geophysical Union 

"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5*







*American Medical Association 

"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6*







*American Meteorological Society 

"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7*







*American Physical Society 

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8*







*The Geological Society of America 

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9*


----------



## Old Rocks (May 9, 2016)

Ah, but the 'Conservatives' have an obese junkie and a fake British Lord to tell them the real truth. And when they are told for the 50th time that the Earth is cooling, they will put on their parkas, and step out into the sunny 90 degree weather, assuring everyone that they will freeze to death if they do not do likewise.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 9, 2016)

A shit load of appeals to authority and no science to back up any claim your making..  The run in circles never stops.  Claim you have consensus, claim you have science, claim your political groups agenda statements are fact based on failed modeling.. 

But not once is real, observed, quantifiable data found or used..

Your chicken little cries of doom and gloom are hype and pure grade - A bull shit.. Designed so the masses will give up their freedoms, their ability to feed themselves, and make all of us dependent on your communist, top down, control government..

Your problem now is more and more people are waking up to the fact you have no facts and its all bull shit lies and deceptions..  And that scares the hell out of you.. as it should!


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> A shit load of appeals to authority and no science to back up any claim your making..



*what backs up your opinions..*.*where is your science*...how come you make the outlandish claim that Science is corrupt yet cannot come up with any facts any documents or documentation to back that up...no links no nothing...my posts have links ...have information .*.all you ninnies do is keep repeating your opinions over and over as though that is going to make your opinions magically outweigh Science.... My posts contain information links and documentation...all you all do is keep repeating over and over your opinions...*


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > A shit load of appeals to authority and no science to back up any claim your making..
> ...


Climategate opened up the real lies and games they are and were playing, yet you deny this. Its well documented. Even the latest papers by Thomas Karl was shown a fraud and manipulation, using real world facts.. But just like the claim that fire in Alberta was caused by GHG's that old fraud made were horse crap so are your appeals.. The fact that you refuse to see these very visible facts is on you and your cult.. it will come back to haunt you.  And yet you have no observable or quantifiable facts to support your position.  That speaks volumes about the piles of garbage you spout  based on models with no predictive powers and fail with 100% certainty, in less than 3 days.. Model outputs are pure fantasy.. There inability to predict even a fart 30 seconds out show just how far from reality they are.

Something tells me you would get in a plane that falls out of the sky when modeled and then when it crashes you will claim success....


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Errors Cited in Assessing Climate Data - The New York Times*
> \
> ... John R. Christy and_ Roy_ W._Spencer_ of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, conceded yesterday that they had made a _mistake_
> 
> ...



Hotwhopper, SkepticalScience(John the liar Cook and Dana Nuttercellie) and the New York Slime..  Opinion pieces based on fantasy models..   Funny; not one real, observable fact to be seen...


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


no,  they don't


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Again...his whole point is that there is no data......
> ...


well post up the observed data.  Dude, you're making statements like you can't get your own way, rather than providing documents to back the story.  We're only right in that there has been zero observed, measured data to support the claims of CO2 and man.  Just zero.  Zero plus Zero = Zero.  nadda, nothing, absolutely nothing.  and any other variant of null you can muster.  So, no, I don't think I'm right, I'm telling them they haven't proved it.  Big ass difference chamberlain.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > you guys are claiming that man is causing global climate change.
> ...


exactly again.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus*
> *AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES*
> *Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations*
> *"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2*
> ...


the IPCC conceded the 15 year pause.  DOH!!!!!

Can't have a pause if the noitalls say it's escalating.  Explain how that works for the class.


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > My position is superbly supported.
> ...




Regardless of your attempted deflection...my position is that there is absolutely no observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....and I can't help but notice that you aren't even attempting to bring any here......it should make you wonder why you can't simply pop out to google and get some...


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



Actually they don't...but then facts aren't really what you guys are about....for example....your complete inability to bring a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence forward supporting the A in AGW...


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Again...his whole point is that there is no data......
> ...



There is no data....none whatsoever and no amount of twisting, turning, shucking and jiving, ducking and covering, etc is going to make that fact go away...if there were any observed, measured, quantified data you would surely bring it here and slap me down with it...not happening though...so what do you think that 97% consensus that you believe exists is based on if there is no actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in the hypothesis?



TyroneSlothrop said:


> Go and tel them they are making a big mistake



Actually it should be you who is asking why they have no observed, measured, quantified evidence...they have made you believe that it exists somewhere but clearly it doesn't...why aren't you questioning that?


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > you guys are claiming that man is causing global climate change.
> ...



And the fact remains that there isn't the fist shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...why does that not bother you?  If I believed a thing and someone claimed that there was no evidence to support my belief, I would bring the hard evidence upon which my belief was based forward to show them how wrong they are....if, upon looking for the evidence I thought existed, I could not find it...not even the first bit, rather than whining to the person who challenged my belief, I would be wondering why I believed what I did when there was, in fact, no observed, measured, quantified evidence to support that belief, and indeed, why I ever held the belief in the first place...regardless of who said that it is true...


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > My position is superbly supported ..
> ...



And still not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW....how stupid does it make you feel to keep on defending climate science when they can't provide you with even one shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW that you could post here to shut me up?    And rather than bring the actual evidence to support your belief, you post some guy going on about UFO's....it is you who is operating from a position of faith...it is you who believes when no evidence exists to support your belief...it is you who is standing there empty handed unable to provide any observed, measured, quantified evidence to throw in my face to show me how wrong I am...


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > "Believe" WTF? How about some facts to back up that Belief?
> ...



Which evidence would it be that has the skeptics unconvinced?  There is no obser


TyroneSlothrop said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > "Believe" WTF? How about some facts to back up that Belief?
> ...



Which evidence would it be that has left the skeptics unconvinced?  There is no observed, measured, quantified evidence which is why they are skeptics....you know, the number of people who can't see the emperors new clothes is always quite small...because the number of people who can think for themselves is always quite small...you continue to believe, and attempt to defend the indefensible when it should, according to you, be so easy to grab a bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence from the internet to bring here to show the skeptics how wrong they are...who is being fooled here?  Not me...I have my eyes wide open and am seeing you and yours completely unable to bring forward the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence to support what you believe.


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > "Believe" WTF? How about some facts to back up that Belief?
> ...



Which evidence would it be that has the skeptics unconvinced?  There is no obser


TyroneSlothrop said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > "Believe" WTF? How about some facts to back up that Belief?
> ...



Which evidence would it be that has left the skeptics unconvinced?  There is no observed, measured, quantified evidence which is why they are skeptics....you know, the number of people who can't see the emperors new clothes is always quite small...because the number of people who can think for themselves is always quite small...you continue to believe, and attempt to defend the indefensible when it should, according to you, be so easy to grab a bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence from the internet to bring here to show the skeptics how wrong they are...who is being fooled here?  Not me...I have my eyes wide open and am seeing you and yours completely unable to bring forward the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence to support what you believe.


----------



## Wuwei (May 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> .my position is that there is absolutely no observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....and I can't help but notice that you aren't even attempting to bring any here......


Are you bringing that crap to this thread too? You were already shown the evidence in the thread you started.
In Support of the A in AGW

You keep harping on the same thing! You were given _*observed, measured quantified evidence*_ that there is back radiation from the greenhouse gasses hitting earth. The only point you had in rebuttal is to lie about the laws of physics. You were soundly rebutted against that too.


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus*
> *AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES*
> *Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations*
> *"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2*
> ...



Lot of big important sounding names there...surely they have some observed, measured, quantified evidence to support what they are saying....and if it exists, surely they have posted it out on the internet to shut up the skeptics....go out and cut and paste a bit of it to bring it here...

And when you can't find it, ask yourself upon what are they making their claims?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> And when you can't find it, ask yourself upon what are they making their claims?


Again you simply repeat nonsense ..those are Scientific Organization...the dat has been collected go look at it LOL

all you do is pretend your statements counter the statements of Scientific Agencies..they are based on science ..you are based on "repeating stupid"..Science on my side nothing on your side excpt your opinions which are nonsense


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And when you can't find it, ask yourself upon what are they making their claims?
> ...


dude what part of there isn't any evidence there don't you understand?  I mean, we've been there, and, there isn't any evidence "there".  Post some up of what it is you think is?  Show us dude.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Which evidence would it be that has left the skeptics unconvinced?



I am sure you can come up with data or at least a link to someone or some agency that says there is no AGW ...but all you do is keep repeating nonsense


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> dude what part of there isn't any evidence there don't you understand?  I mean, we've been there, and, there isn't any evidence there.  Post some up of what it is you think is?  Show us dude.


*what part of all the Scientific evidence supports my position *is it that you do not understand ...all Scientific Organizations supports my posit5ion and you have no links no information to offer ...


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

I knew you couldn't produce any, and I agree it is hilarious that you think there is evidence "there"


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .my position is that there is absolutely no observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....and I can't help but notice that you aren't even attempting to bring any here......
> ...


apparently this SSDD believes he is an authority over Science...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> I knew you couldn't produce any, and I agree it is hilarious that you think there is evidence "there"


there is only your empty  opinions ...Science as I have shown supports my position...


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > dude what part of there isn't any evidence there don't you understand?  I mean, we've been there, and, there isn't any evidence there.  Post some up of what it is you think is?  Show us dude.
> ...


good for you.  That doesn't automatically qualify as evidence just cause you believe them.  I don't, and there isn't any evidence there.  So what do we do?  Hmm, I'm going to keep asking you to present the evidence and you'll keep avoiding it.  So, it appears there is no evidence.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


he does?  When has he ever stated such a thing?  I think that is bull, and you can't prove it.  Can you?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

These nihilist fools believe if they simply repeat that they are Correct it overcomes Science and Scientific agencies...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Post something  anything that supports your position ...you have nothing ..I have posted literally dozens of links to the science LOL


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I knew you couldn't produce any, and I agree it is hilarious that you think there is evidence "there"
> ...


you haven't shown a damn thing gene, you just post up links with nothing of relevance to any discussion and no excerpts that qualify as observed evidence of anything.  Thanks for playing though.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

Imagine the egos of these crazy anti science people who think their opinion tops science LOL


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


all you do is repeat nonsense ...I have shown links I have shown what scientific organizations on Climate believe...where are your links ...where do your opinions come from LOL


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> These nihilist fools believe if they simply repeat that they are Correct it overcomes Science and Scientific agencies...


again, a statement of error.  Never claimed I was correct about anything.  Post a clip of me claiming such.  I maintain, that you can't post evidence of anything out of any of those scientific societies that can qualify as proof that CO2 causes temperatures to increase.  So, back at ya.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


The science is clear and the SSDD nonsense dude thinks all he has to do is express his opinion and it overrules science ...like you


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


I am not claiming anything.  here this is a post that you can't post one piece of evidence to support CO2 causes temps to go up.  That is fact.  prove me wrong.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > These nihilist fools believe if they simply repeat that they are Correct it overcomes Science and Scientific agencies...
> ...


you are being cute LOL you are in denial of AGW and your are in denial of your denial of science as an authority


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


my opinion.  What is it that I have opined?  I have not offered any opinion, I have requested evidence, and I have remained consistent with that effort.  So post up some comment of mine that is an opinion piece.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


you are claiming there is no evidence .*.NONSENSE LOL*


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


WINNING!!!!  I love being factually correct.  Now that I'll say, since you can't disprove it.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


I claim there is no evidence that CO2 causes temps to go up.  You have never presented any.  So, yeah that is a claim to you!  Not the scientists or there societies of fun. (opinion)


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


you are nonsense you are in denial of your own denial LOL


your position is that there is no evidence of Global warming...support that position


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


how stupid is that?  you can't show me so I have to create something that doesn't exist to show that it doesn't exist?  how does one do that?  It isn't warming up outside.  Manipulation is done to show otherwise, CO2 went up and temps didn't and the AR5 report agreed.  What else can I post that can show you differently, I can't cause it doesn't exist.  I can't show you something that never happened.  That would indeed be a trick and fking magic.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


well where I'd like to respond I can't because I would merely be repeating myself.  So without you posting some evidence, I have my evidence that it doesn't exist. There, wow, I'm exhausted from all the nothing being posted.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

*Climate Myth...*
*There's no empirical evidence*
"There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence." (David Evans)

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

The reason that the Earth is warm enough to sustain life is because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases act like a blanket, keeping the Earth warm by preventing some of the sun’s energy being re-radiated into space. The effect is exactly the same as wrapping yourself in a blanket – it reduces heat loss from your body and keeps you warm.

If we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the effect is like wrapping yourself in a thicker blanket: even less heat is lost. So how can we tell what effect CO2 is having on temperatures, and if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is really making the planet warmer?

One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: *more energy is remaining in the atmosphere*.






*The Smoking Gun*
The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:





_Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006)._

The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: *most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.*


_Total Earth Heat Content from Church et al. (2011)_


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


when you can come up with something that supports "there is no evidence that CO 2 cause GW ..let me know ..post a link like I just did


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


you are asserting there is no evidence of Global warming..where are your links .to proof of that


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


I have it like I said, the fact you can't post any.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

“Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect.”

It’s important to be clear that by no means did the Berkeley researchers _need_ to do this in order to prove that carbon dioxide is trapping heat in the atmosphere: as physicist and climate expert Ken Caldeira explained to the San Francisco Chronicle, “the underlying physics is robust and was never in question.” Climate scientist Andrew Dessler told the Associated Press that the work is somewhat similar to using a falling rock to confirm gravity.

But the findings do help validate climate models that depend, in part, on correctly simulating the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Mashable’s Andrew Freedman explains. All of that research warning that human activity is directly contributing to global warming, in other words, and that “substantial and sustained” reductions in emissions are our best hope of avoiding “severe, pervasive and irreversible” consequences, is no longer deniable — not that it ever was.

Scientists stick it to climate deniers: Study provides direct evidence that human activity is causing global warming


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> the fact you can't post any.


Nonsense post a source like I just did twice LOL you just keep repeating your opinion...


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Climate Myth...*
> *There's no empirical evidence*
> "There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence." (David Evans)
> 
> ...


I never said that CO2 doesn't absorb.  never!!! All of that is very pretty but it doesn't support that adding CO2 adds heat.  It just doesn't.  What it is is someone who takes the fact that we drive cars and that CO2 is added to the atmosphere and say, it got hot today so CO2 caused it.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  The way it works is that you show that CO2 radiates after it has absorbs back to the surface of the planet, and to date no scientific society has shown that.  That isn't included in all of that, so you still haven't supported the claim.  You also know that CO2 is logarithmic right?  Do you know what that means?  hmmmmm, I bet you do, but you're afraid it helps prove my position.

The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide






Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > the fact you can't post any.
> ...


i did


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> “Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect.”
> 
> It’s important to be clear that by no means did the Berkeley researchers _need_ to do this in order to prove that carbon dioxide is trapping heat in the atmosphere: as physicist and climate expert Ken Caldeira explained to the San Francisco Chronicle, “the underlying physics is robust and was never in question.” Climate scientist Andrew Dessler told the Associated Press that the work is somewhat similar to using a falling rock to confirm gravity.
> 
> ...


that's a bunch of mumbo jumbo with no evidence at all.  All it is someone saying someone trapped it and found it.  No evidence there.  Did you bother to read it?  I mean dude, I expect better from you.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> that's a bunch of mumbo jumbo with no evidence at all.  All it is someone saying someone trapped it and found it.  No evidence there.  Did you bother to read it?  I mean dude, I expect better from you.


try to link to anyone or anything that supports your nonsense...I already know what you believe because you have spammed the thread repeatedly with your position however you fail to support your position in any way ...you merely repeat it...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Post anything that supports your nonsense ...


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...





TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Climate Myth...*
> *There's no empirical evidence*
> "There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence." (David Evans)
> 
> ...



here, this doesn't contain any information regarding back radiation.  It isn't in here, as such disproves that CO2 can cause temps to increase.  You have to have back radiation in order to support your claim, it isn't there friend.  There is my link for you

Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > that's a bunch of mumbo jumbo with no evidence at all.  All it is someone saying someone trapped it and found it.  No evidence there.  Did you bother to read it?  I mean dude, I expect better from you.
> ...


BTW, you know you have to have back radiation for your hypothesis to be good right?  Not that CO2 absorbs, that's science and we all know this.  So now post up that link with the back radiation that can prove CO2 is a sun.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


In other words more spamming of your opinion ..no links to support your positions ...not surprised at all


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Nonsense ..science supports my position that is why you cannot post anything but your opinion ..over and over


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


hahahahahahahahahahahaha, it doesn't work that way Tommie ole boy.  you make a claim, you back the claim, not vice versa, I know you want it to be like that but, alas, it isn't.  See I claim there is no back radiation.  I make that claim due to the absence of links to prove it is there.  comprehenday?


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


I can't post anything cause you or your side hasn't.  I just said that.

Again, the fact there are no links to show back radiation is my evidence that there isn't back radiation.  See how that works?

Hey, one other thing, when the ground absorbs heat from the sun, you can observe the steam radiate up and off of different objects, I have never found a picture with steam pushing toward the surface.  If you got one, let's see it, cause that would indeed be truly amazing to see.  I've seen fog, but hey, that's water.  hmmmmm i doubt you can.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> I can't post anything cause you or your side hasn't.  I just said that.


I am done posting to you..all I get is your opinion repeated over and over..I will check if I see something new from you I will respond...as long as you are just repeating the same old opinion what is the point...


----------



## Wuwei (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> hahahahahahahahahahahaha, it doesn't work that way Tommie ole boy. you make a claim, you back the claim, not vice versa, I know you want it to be like that but, alas, it isn't. See I claim there is no back radiation. I make that claim due to the absence of links to prove it is there. comprehenday?


You are repeating the same crap as SSDD. There is back-radiation because every substance radiates EM energy to every other substance in it's path no matter what the temperatures are. You have denied that understanding that is known by 100% of all scientists.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I can't post anything cause you or your side hasn't.  I just said that.
> ...


I see WINNING in my future.  Thanks. I knew you couldn't produce evidence of your claim.  Thanks for playing CO2 doesn't cause AGW.  have a nice day.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > hahahahahahahahahahahaha, it doesn't work that way Tommie ole boy. you make a claim, you back the claim, not vice versa, I know you want it to be like that but, alas, it isn't. See I claim there is no back radiation. I make that claim due to the absence of links to prove it is there. comprehenday?
> ...


And yet you can't provide evidence of it can you?  again, with what I just posted, everyone can see steam radiate up off of hot surfaces, I have never seen a hot item radiate toward the ground.  NEVER.  Post a red hot amber of anything and tell me which way the steam off of that amber will go. I bet It will go up. If I hold my hand over it it will be hotter at the top from farther away, and yet you will lose the heat within inches under it.  hmmmmmmm why is that?  The temperature of the air is equal around it?  why is it hotter farther away on the top from that on the bottom?  Cause heat rises, it is scientifically proven heat rises.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

In any discussion the wing nuts always come to a point where they say "see I wiped up the board with you"..*More unscientific nonsense LOL*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > hahahahahahahahahahahaha, it doesn't work that way Tommie ole boy. you make a claim, you back the claim, not vice versa, I know you want it to be like that but, alas, it isn't. See I claim there is no back radiation. I make that claim due to the absence of links to prove it is there. comprehenday?
> ...


That person believes that all he has to do is repeat his opinion and that is it essentially...and its seriously nonsense ...his opinion...


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


I only do what you all do.  We ask for evidence and get nothing.  you repeat and So I must ask again cause it seems you don't understand what was asked.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> In any discussion the wing nuts always come to a point where they say "see I wiped up the board with you"..*More unscientific nonsense LOL*


well then post up your winning post where you prove back radiation exists.


----------



## Wuwei (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> That person believes that all he has to do is repeat his opinion and that is it essentially...and its seriously nonsense ...his opinion...


He is still posting crap. Talking about steam and amber etc. He is one of SSDD's minions that try to put scientific words in sentences that don't mean anything.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

links please


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > That person believes that all he has to do is repeat his opinion and that is it essentially...and its seriously nonsense ...his opinion...
> ...


and you still can't produce back radiation evidence.  So until then ladies and gents, SSDD and I are Winning.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > That person believes that all he has to do is repeat his opinion and that is it essentially...and its seriously nonsense ...his opinion...
> ...


The topper of it all he is demanding proof LOL  I have posted all the links I am going to post..those nut bags could be confronted with all the data in the world but it will not change their so called minds because using data and science  is not how they arrived at their positions


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

one inverted picture of heat going toward the ground.  Just one.  why is that so difficult with so much evidence on your side?


----------



## Wuwei (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> The topper of it all he is demanding proof LOL I have posted all the links I am going to post..those nut bags could be confronted with all the data in the world but it will not change their so called minds because using data and science is not how they arrived at their positions


The whole problem on this environment board is trying to discuss science with kids who don't understand science. They even deny proven scientific principles involving radiation physics, and the second law of thermodynamics.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


dude, you posted tons of material good for you, it doesn't qualify if it doesn't back your position.  I'd be pissed as well.  All that effort you gave and nothing to show for it cause it didn't achieve the goal.  The goal, prove CO2 acts like a sun.  Dude, you could post a lab experiment, that would do it, you could post up observed data and that would do it, you could just post up a picture of heat moving toward the ground and you got it.  I'm just saying, you make it sound simple and here you are confronted with your own failure.  Wow.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > The topper of it all he is demanding proof LOL I have posted all the links I am going to post..those nut bags could be confronted with all the data in the world but it will not change their so called minds because using data and science is not how they arrived at their positions
> ...


I know right?  I mean in my scientific world, one tests an hypothesis to prove a theory.  So far the CO2 implications have never been validated.  And that is basic science.  Thanks.


----------



## Wuwei (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> you could just post up a picture of heat moving toward the ground and you got it. I'm just saying, you make it sound simple and here you are confronted with your own failure.


Here is a simple experiment for you that you might be able to manage. Turn on an iron and let it get real hot. Yes you will feel the heat above it. Hold your hand one or two inches under the iron. And let me know if your hand stays cold.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > The topper of it all he is demanding proof LOL I have posted all the links I am going to post..those nut bags could be confronted with all the data in the world but it will not change their so called minds because using data and science is not how they arrived at their positions
> ...


*Like I said they did not arrive at their positions on Global warming via science or facts..its dogma ...political dogma .*..but in places where the AGW is already impacting that political dogma is weakening ..this is from the front page Miami Paper
*S. Florida Republicans lead their party from climate change denial*
*jrosen@mcclatchydc.com
WASHINGTON
Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo and Democratic Rep. Ted Deutch, whose South Florida districts are already enduring increased flooding, salt water intrusion and other effects of rising sea levels, are leading the first truly bipartisan congressional effort to tackle climate change.

Joined by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Miami Republican, they’ve formed a caucus that uses an unusual “buddy system” in which each Democratic member must bring along a Republican colleague willing to renounce party orthodoxy and stop minimizing the peril – or even existence – of global warming. 
*


----------



## Wuwei (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Like I said they did not arrive at their positions on Global warming via science or facts..its dogma ...political dogma .*..but in places where the AGW is already impacting that political dogma is weakening ..this is from the front page Miami Paper
> *S. Florida Republicans lead their party from climate change denial*
> *jrosen@mcclatchydc.com*
> *WASHINGTON*
> ...


I live in FL too. It was amazing that Gov Scott issued an order a few months ago for his people never to say "climate change"


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > you could just post up a picture of heat moving toward the ground and you got it. I'm just saying, you make it sound simple and here you are confronted with your own failure.
> ...


how do you want the iron positioned?  I mean if hold the handle and point the flat hot iron on the top it will mostly all rise upward.  if I hold the iron with the plate on the bottom, two inches from the bottom I will feel a little heat, but above it I will feel more heat cause it will rise. I never said that all things don't radiate I state that heat will not radiate to the ground.  Ever been near a fire pit?  Where is the hottest point of a fire?  The sides or the top?  Shit dude, had a fire Saturday night at the cottage and the energy in the middle was awesome you could feel the pressure of the heat it could blow up a balloon.  Hot air balloon that is.  but off to the sides, you had to get within two feet to feel the most comfortable heat.  It's all about energy and direction and all you can do is say it radiates.  Well that doesn't prove anything without energy.  It has to move toward something.  you can't prove heat moving downward.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> In any discussion the wing nuts always come to a point where they say "see I wiped up the board with you"..*More unscientific nonsense LOL*





jc456 said:


> well then post up your winning post where you prove back radiation exists.



OK troll. Here you go. From one of the denier cult's favorite scientists...Dr. Roy Spencer.

*Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still*
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
July 23rd, 2010 
(excerpts)
*I’m getting a lot of e-mail traffic from some nice folks who are trying to convince me that the physics of the so-called Greenhouse Effect are not physically possible. More specifically, that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is not physically capable of causing warming. These arguments usually involve claims that “back radiation” can not flow from the cooler upper layers of the atmosphere to the warmer lower layers. This back radiation is a critical component of the theoretical explanation for the Greenhouse Effect. 

Sometimes the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or Kirchoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation, are invoked in these arguments against back radiation and the greenhouse effect. One of the more common statements is, “How can a cooler atmospheric layer possibly heat a warmer atmospheric layer below it?” The person asking the question obviously thinks the hypothetical case represented by their question is so ridiculous that no one could disagree with them. Well, I’m going to go ahead and say it: THE PRESENCE OF COOLER OBJECTS CAN, AND DO, CAUSE WARMER OBJECTS TO GET EVEN HOTTER.

Examples of objects with lower temperatures causing objects with higher temperatures to become even higher still are all around us. Let’s use clouds at night. Almost everyone has experienced the fact that cloudy nights tend to be warmer than clear nights. The most dramatic effect I’ve seen of this is in the winter, on a cold clear night with snow cover. The temperature will drop rapidly. But if a cloud layer moves in, the temperature will either stop dropping, or even warm dramatically. This warming occurs because the cloud radiates much more IR energy downward than does a clear, dry atmosphere. This changes the energy budget of the surface dramatically, often causing warming -- even though the cloud is usually at a lower temperature than the ground is. Even high altitude cirrus clouds at a temperature well below than of the surface, can cause warming. So, once again, we see that the presence of a colder object can cause a warmer object to become warmer still.*
(Read more at website)


----------



## Wuwei (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> I never said that all things don't radiate I state that heat will not radiate to the ground.


Yes you did say that. You denied back radiation. The heat from the bottom of the iron is radiation downward. QED. You were clamoring about heat only rising. You were referring to conduction, not radiation.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I never said that all things don't radiate I state that heat will not radiate to the ground.
> ...


correct back radiation to the surface dude.  All things radiate the full area around an object.  That is science.  I've states such to others in here.  But now you need to discuss the energy to move the heat from the object and again, that will always be up.  unless you can prove it otherwise. I merely ask for evidence to demonstrate this ability. 

so if you have that amber I spoke of earlier, and you suspended it, would the amount of heat dissipate as you moved away from the object?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I never said that all things don't radiate I state that heat will not radiate to the ground.
> ...


the dude is doing this


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Dance dude LOL you are wiping up the board with everybody now  due to your brilliance LOL


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I never said that all things don't radiate I state that heat will not radiate to the ground.
> ...


dude you are now splitting hairs.  I don't believe that CO2 warms the surface of the planet.  Period.  That would require back radiation.  And I say that doesn't happen.  I've asked for and repeatedly been ignored for the evidence that back radiation warms the surface of the planet.  Ask Ian, I've never wavered from that stance.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


I don't dance that well, so that can't be me.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> I don't dance that well, so that can't be me.


I am confident you do not do much well ...your posting is very poor quality...just saying..


----------



## Wuwei (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> dude you are now splitting hairs. I don't believe that CO2 warms the surface of the planet. Period.


No scientist in their right mind would say that CO2 warms the surface of earth.  You really don't understand much of anything...  CO2 and other GHG's *slows the surface heat loss*.  It keeps the energy that the sun provides "blanketed" so the earth doesn't totally freeze.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > dude you are now splitting hairs. I don't believe that CO2 warms the surface of the planet. Period.
> ...


well wait, you all were saying that IR radiates to the surface warming the surfacing.  which is it?  By the way, I believe that water in the air holds more heat than CO2 could.  I asked if the sun was a minimum, how is it temperatures could go up?  I was told CO2.  how can that be? If there is less LWIR how can it get warmer?  I'm just saying.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't dance that well, so that can't be me.
> ...


well that is the only thing you'd be confident in then.


----------



## Wuwei (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> well wait, you all were saying that IR radiates to the surface warming the surfacing. which is it? By the way, I believe that water in the air holds more heat than CO2 could. I asked if the sun was a minimum, how is it temperatures could go up? I was told CO2. how can that be? If there is less LWIR how can it get warmer? I'm just saying.


You are full of incomplete sentences. You are rambling with questions that have no relation to what was under discussion. It is impossible to explain anything to you if you don't have at least a little understanding of science. I have gone over all this once before to you and you continually come back with scientific pronouncements that are naive and totally off target.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > well wait, you all were saying that IR radiates to the surface warming the surfacing. which is it? By the way, I believe that water in the air holds more heat than CO2 could. I asked if the sun was a minimum, how is it temperatures could go up? I was told CO2. how can that be? If there is less LWIR how can it get warmer? I'm just saying.
> ...


does IR radiate to the surface?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> I've asked for and repeatedly been ignored for the evidence that back radiation warms the surface of the planet.



And, JustCrazy, you have been shown that evidence many times. You always ignore it and go on repeating your demented lies.

I just showed you some evidence from a scientist that you denier cultists cite all the time....*right here in post #499.*


----------



## RollingThunder (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Yes!

The Earth receives energy from the sun, heating the Earth, and then re-radiates that heat energy as long wave infrared radiation, back out towards outer space. Most of the Earth's atmosphere is transparent to that IR radiation, but greenhouse gases have a physical molecular structure that causes them to absorb infrared radiation and either re-radiate that IR radiation in all directions or transmit the increased molecular vibrational energy to surrounding gas molecules (thus heating the atmosphere). Some of the energy the greenhouse gases radiate does indeed reach the surface, keeping the planet significantly warmer than it would be in the absence of any greenhouse gases.

Too bad you're obviously too stupid and brainwashed to understand that, JustCrazy.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I've asked for and repeatedly been ignored for the evidence that back radiation warms the surface of the planet.
> ...


really?  hmmm what is that evidence in that post?  Everyone knows that it is warmer at night with cloud cover, the LWIR reflects off the clouds back to the surface, in the same manner the clouds reflect sunlight back to space.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


well if it actually heated the atmosphere, there would need to be a hot spot.  Right?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


And, of course, you failed to read the whole article, you deranged troll.

From that article by Dr. Roy Spencer....

*As mentioned above, in the case of the cold depths of outer space surrounding the Earth’s solar-heated surface, ANY infrared absorber that gets between the Earth’s surface and space will cause the surface to warm. This radiative insulating function occurs in the atmosphere because of the presence of greenhouse gases, that is, gases that absorb and emit significant amounts of infrared energy…(mostly water vapor, CO2, and methane). Clouds also contribute to the Greenhouse Effect. Kirchoff’s Law of thermal radiation says (roughly), that a good infrared absorber is an equally good infrared emitter. So, each layer of the atmosphere is continuously absorbing IR, as well as emitting it. This is what makes the Greenhouse Effect so much more difficult to understand conceptually than solar heating of the Earth. While the sun is a single source, and most of the energy absorbed by the Earth is at a single level (the surface of the ground), in the case of infrared energy, every layer becomes both as source of energy and an absorber of energy. 

It also helps that our eyes are much more sensitive to solar radiation than they (or even our skin) are to infrared radiation. It’s more difficult to conceptualize that which you can’t see. Our intuition begins to fail us when presented with this complexity. The following illustration shows some of these energy flows: just the IR being emitted upward and downward by different atmospheric layers. If I included arrows representing the IR energy being absorbed by those layers, too, it would become hopelessly indecipherable.
*
*

*
*
As a result of the atmosphere’s ability to radiatively insulate the Earth’s surface from losing infrared energy directly to the “cold” depths of outer space, the surface warms to a higher average temperature than it would have if the atmosphere was not there. The no-atmosphere, global average surface temperature has been theoretically calculated to be around 0 deg. F. This, then, constitutes the basic mechanism of the Greenhouse Effect. Greenhouse gases represent a “radiative blanket” that keeps the Earth’s surface warmer than it would otherwise be without those gases present. In fact, research published in the 1960s showed that, if the current atmosphere suddenly became still -- with no wind, evaporation, and convective overturning transporting excess energy from the surface to the upper atmosphere -- the average surface temperature of the Earth would warm dramatically, from 0 deg. F with no greenhouse gases, to about 140 deg. F. That the real world temperature is much lower, around 59 deg. F, is due to the cooling effects of weather transporting heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere through convective air currents. Weather as we know it would not even exist without the greenhouse effect continuously destabilizing the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere. Vertical air currents associated with weather act to stabilize the atmospheric temperature profile, but it is the greenhouse effect that keeps the process going by warming the lower atmosphere, and cooling the upper atmosphere, to the point where convection must occur.*


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


again, if there was actual heat in the atmosphere there would be a hot spot.  There isn't one. Fail.

Clouds reflect LWIR back that's it along with stored energy from the absorbed sunshine.

CO2 does not make the surface warmer.


----------



## Wuwei (May 9, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> And, of course, you failed to read the whole article, you deranged troll.
> 
> From that article by Dr. Roy Spencer...
> ..........
> ..........


My god. JC failed to understand that and it was so clear. I don't think he is capable of understanding anything involving science. His "retort" totally missed the mark. JC can't think for himself. He can only parrot phrases he reads from other deniers. We are wasting our time trying to "communicate" with him.


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And when you can't find it, ask yourself upon what are they making their claims?
> ...



Sure they are...or used to be anyway....I can't help but notice that you still haven't posted the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the A in AGW....are you wondering why you can't find any yet?


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Which evidence would it be that has left the skeptics unconvinced?
> ...



I perfectly understand that agencies say that there is AGW....That isn't in contention...of course agencies have said all sorts of things in the past that turned out to not be true....What I am saying is that there is not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the A in AGW....

How hard is it for you to understand that?


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > dude what part of there isn't any evidence there don't you understand?  I mean, we've been there, and, there isn't any evidence there.  Post some up of what it is you think is?  Show us dude.
> ...



So what observed, measured, quantified evidence are the scientific organizations basing their claims upon...I can't find it...you can't find it...no one on earth can find it because it doesn't exist...


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > .my position is that there is absolutely no observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....and I can't help but notice that you aren't even attempting to bring any here......
> ...



Sorry guy..never happened....Crick provided evidence that an instrument cooled to -80 degrees can measure energy moving from the warmer sky...how do you claim that supports the A in AGW?...then rocks provided evidence that so called greenhouse gasses absorb and emit radiation....he failed to note the fact that they also emit the radiation that they absorbed...that doesn't even prove that absorption and emission equals warming..there is certain no natural law that says such a thing...how do you suppose that supports the A in AGW?  I have asked before but you failed to give any sort of an answer.


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I am not claiming to be an authority over anything..I am asking for the observed, measured, quantified evidence that the "authorities" supposedly base their positions on...


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I knew you couldn't produce any, and I agree it is hilarious that you think there is evidence "there"
> ...



But you have not shown even the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the opinion of science...what is their opinion based on if not observed, measured, quantified evidence...they are supposed to be science after all...where is the evidence?


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> These nihilist fools believe if they simply repeat that they are Correct it overcomes Science and Scientific agencies...



You, or any other warmer could prove me wrong at any time simply by posting some observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the A in AGW...it isn't going to happen though....do you know why?  Because as I have said...there isn't any....not the first bit...


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...




OK...lets try to simplify this...maybe the point of the argument is flying right over your head...excuse me for assuming that you are smarter than you apparently are.

No one is denying that you have posted links to scientific organizations that believe that man is responsible for climate change...that is not in question nor has it ever been in question....As you have stated, you have posted links that have shown what scientific organizations believe....no question about it...you have shown what scientific organizations believe.

Now, lets get to the point...when you hold a belief, there is usually something that caused you to hold that belief...when you are a scientific organization,  the thing that should lead you to a belief...or to be sure of the cause of a thing is observed, measured, quantified evidence...especially when the thing that you believe is an observable, measurable, quantifiable entity...  Science believes that man is causing the temperature of the atmosphere to change...the atmosphere is an observable, measurable, quantifiable entity..

The point is that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the belief that man is causing the climate to change....showing temperate graphs certainly shows that the temperature has changed...but the temperature is always changing...increasing temperature does not prove that man is causing it because the temperatures have been much higher in the past without the aid of mankind or the internal combustion engine...and CO2 has been much higher in the past even during ice ages..

You can post organizations giving their opinions, or their belief all you like, but until you can post the actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that led them to that opinion or belief, you are not doing anything of value...and you will never post any observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that mankind is causing climate change because not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence exists to support that claim...


----------



## IanC (May 9, 2016)

jc - you have had your questions answered over and over again. Yet you endlessly re-ask them.

Is there back radiation? Yes, of course, every object radiates according to its temperature.

Does back radiation warm the surface? Sort of, it is sending energy to the surface, adding to amount of net energy. Heat is the net transfer of energy, by any means, radiation conduction convection. Temperature is the amount of average energy relative to a reference. The surface temperature is controlled by the equation 'energy in minus energy out'. Using averages for sunlight and surface temps gives us 160w in, minus 400w out. The difference is 240w, which is the least amount of 'back radiation' possible. Latent heat and convection skew the results by adding another pathway.

You keep mentioning 'heat rises'. This has nothing to do with radiation. It is a gravity driven effect. The same volume of air, at a higher temp, has fewer molecules, and is therefore lighter. Surrounding air pressure pushes it up because of gravity. Likewise air with more water (H2O) is lighter than dry air, and is also pushed up by gravity.

You have mentioned the hot spot on numerous occasions. It is already there. It is the cloud boundary where water vapour gives up its latent heat and condenses. No meaningful change has been found over the last seven decades which leads to the conclusion that climate models are deficient in handling evaporation, convection and clouds. On the other hand, increased CO2 in the stratosphere should lead to cooling, and that has been observed.

All-in all I give you a failing grade in all things concerned with physics. I wish you would stick to politics rather than fouling the skeptical discussion with outlandish and false claims in the realm of physics.


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



How can the science be clear when there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence to support claims regarding an observable, measurable, quantifiable entity such as the atmosphere?


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



And yet, you can't seem to post any observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the A in AGW...


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Climate Myth...*
> *There's no empirical evidence*
> "There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence." (David Evans)
> 
> ...



CO2 doesn't "trap" anything..you have shown a graph shows the absorption spectrum of greenhouse gasses...you could also show an emission spectrum of the so called greenhouse gasses that would look almost like a mirror image of the absorption spectrum...that is because greenhouse gasses (with the exception of water vapor) immediately emit the radiation they absorb...they don't trap the firs bit of energy....

Can you point to a physical law that states that absorption and emission equals warming?....showing that gasses absorb and emit is not evidence that absorption and emission equal warming...and showing a graph of heat content does not even begin to prove what is causing the warming..


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



You posted a link...but it in no way even begins to support the claim that man is causing the global climate to change.


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> “Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect.”
> 
> It’s important to be clear that by no means did the Berkeley researchers _need_ to do this in order to prove that carbon dioxide is trapping heat in the atmosphere: as physicist and climate expert Ken Caldeira explained to the San Francisco Chronicle, “the underlying physics is robust and was never in question.” Climate scientist Andrew Dessler told the Associated Press that the work is somewhat similar to using a falling rock to confirm gravity.
> 
> ...



OK...so go visit one of those studies and copy and paste whatever you believe is there that represents observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

Lets take it step by step...try to follow ...

1) *the Scientific Organizations I linked to use the Scientific Method*.  This involves observation; Hypothesis about the observed phenomena; Experimentation  to test the hypothesis...
2) *The Climate Science world has settled the science on AGW...they believe it to be true *
3) *Since #1 and #2 above are without argument True then they have the quantifiable data to support their rather public stance *...they have published Peer Reviewed papers that lead to the conclusions that AGW is real...you can check my links to see that it is true

*IT IS RIDICULOUS to expect me to post the raw data upon which Climate organizations over decades have used to reach the views that they espouse ...the data is available...follow my links and you will be prompted to what data you seek *

*Now do you have any Scientific  Organization that is making the same claims you are that there exist no data to support AGW ...what a joke LOL *


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



Scientific organizations support your position...science is all about observing, measuring, and quantifying...and there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the opinion that science is holding.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > “Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect.”
> ...


*You bring links here that support your outlandish claim that NOAA NASA all the Met organization of the world have no data to back their beliefs.*..its just a crazy unhinged claim LOL


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > hahahahahahahahahahahaha, it doesn't work that way Tommie ole boy. you make a claim, you back the claim, not vice versa, I know you want it to be like that but, alas, it isn't. See I claim there is no back radiation. I make that claim due to the absence of links to prove it is there. comprehenday?
> ...




And yet, it can't be measured at ambient temperature even though you claim that twice as much is radiating back to earth as comes in from the sun..


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


There sure is or the Science would not agree ...there is evidence.*..what there is no evidence of is your claim that one day all these Scientific organization decided out of the blue to start saying AGW is real without having any data LOL*


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



You posted plenty of links...no doubt...and in doing so, you have proven that you don't have the first idea of what observed, measured, quantified evidence is because there is none in any of the links you provided that supports the anthropogenic component of AGW.


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > The topper of it all he is demanding proof LOL I have posted all the links I am going to post..those nut bags could be confronted with all the data in the world but it will not change their so called minds because using data and science is not how they arrived at their positions
> ...



Kids like you who believe evidence has been posted but can't begin to explain how you think the evidence supports the A in AGW.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Then why is science saying what they are saying ...what is your theory about why the dominant belief is that AGW is real...how do you explain that LOL


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > you could just post up a picture of heat moving toward the ground and you got it. I'm just saying, you make it sound simple and here you are confronted with your own failure.
> ...



So you are proving that the iron will radiate to his cooler hand...is that proof of back radiation?  Is that what serves as proof of back radiation in your mind?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


How do you explain NOT WHAT I BELIEVE ...but what these Scientific Organization believe .*..how do you explain that *


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > In any discussion the wing nuts always come to a point where they say "see I wiped up the board with you"..*More unscientific nonsense LOL*
> ...



So you have posted a mind experiment...which part of that do you believe is observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the A in AGW?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > “Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect.”
> ...


How in the world do you explain to yourself that all these Science organization support AGW being real ...How


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



How do you explain what NASA believes ?


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Lets take it step by step...try to follow ...
> 
> 1) *the Scientific Organizations I linked to use the Scientific Method*.  This involves observation; Hypothesis about the observed phenomena; Experimentation  to test the hypothesis...



OK...if there is experimentation, then there should be observed, measured, quantified evidence that resulted from the experiments....but there is none...there is no experiment that demonstrates that adding a bit of CO2 will cause warming...that is what we are getting at....there are no experiments...and there are no observed, measured, quantified data....there are opinions and assumptions aplenty...but no observed, measured, quantified evidence....



TyroneSlothrop said:


> 2) *The Climate Science world has settled the science on AGW...they believe it to be true*


*
*
I can only guess that you are assuming that there is actual observed, measured, quantified data...and that there have been experiments performed that support the claim that man is altering the global climate...you assumed wrong...as evidenced by your inability to bring any observed, measured, quantified data forward...



TyroneSlothrop said:


> 3) *Since #1 and #2 above are without argument True then they have the quantifiable data to support their rather public stance *...they have published Peer Reviewed papers that lead to the conclusions that AGW is real...you can check my links to see that it is true



Since you can't provide any observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...it stands to reason that your points 1 and 2 are not true...


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



You're inability to provide it is proof goober....I ask for observed, measured, quantified data from the real world and you can't provide it..how much more proof do you need that it doesn't exist?  You can't find it...your buds can't find it....and if actual hard evidence that man was altering the global climate existed, there would be no where to go to get away from it...  there is none...


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



Every time you fail to provide the requested observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the A in AGW you provide more evidence in support of my claim...

You think science can't be bought?  You really think that?  A bucket full of money will create consensus between blacks and the KKK.

And yes, they are saying that AGW is real without any real data...that is exactly what I am saying and the fact that no one can seem to produce any observed, measured, quantified data supporting the A in AGW is evidence that supports my claim...if there were such evidence it would be easy to find and you guys would keep on posting it till I was buried in it....thus far, you have shown absolutely no observed, measured, quantified evidence...because there is none for you to post...


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



$$$$$$$$   if the evidence existed, you should be able to find it with no problem...but you can't...there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence...it doesn't exist and that is why you are left just making excuses for not being able to post any.


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



Money...politics...power...take your pick...I suspect that it is all three....  

If the scientific organizations had observed, measured, quantified data to support their beliefs, don't you think they would have it posted every where?  Hard evidence is all that is required to convince skeptics...you don't see skeptics arguing that gravity doesn't exist...or that water boils at 212 degrees...or that the sun rises in the east....those things are observable and there is hard, observed, measured quantified evidence to support the fact that they are real...there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the claim that man is altering the global climate.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> And yes, they are saying that AGW is real without any real data...that is exactly what I am saying




OK I understand now ...you are unhinged from normal reality ...now I understand ...no wonder OK then ...


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



I don't have to explain it...I only have to point out that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the claim and the fact that you can't provide any, nor can anyone else does nothing but prove my point...I suspect that money, politics, and political power are responsible...those factors have been known to buy scientific opinion in the past...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Money...politics...power...take your pick...I suspect that it is all three....



do you have any data any proof of your allegations ?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> I don't have to explain it...I only have to point out that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the claim and the fact that you can't provide any, nor can anyone else does nothing but prove my point...I suspect that money, politics, and political power are responsible...those factors have been known to buy scientific opinion in the past...


There is data  there certainly is because scientist act on data and science believes in AGW


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



How do you explain why NASA claims what they do regarding AGW when there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the claim?...If it were some other topic we were discussion and billions upon billions, upon billions of dollars were at stake, do you think you would have a problem supposing that since there was no actual evidence to support the claim that perhaps money was at work?


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And yes, they are saying that AGW is real without any real data...that is exactly what I am saying
> ...



So prove it....show me some observed, measured, quantified data that supports the claim that man is altering the global climate....or don't and continue to prove that you are what climate science has called a useful idiot.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

The thesis being held forth  by wing nut is that NOAA NASA all the Meteorological organizations and all the Science organization that believe in AGW just decided to all say the same thing with no data ...yeah OK ...Unbelievable but there is the core belief...'Nuff said ...


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Money...politics...power...take your pick...I suspect that it is all three....
> ...



NO...data won't prove my allegations...observed, measured, quantified data supporting the claim that man is altering the global climate would prove me wrong in a heartbeat....the absence of observed, measured, quantified data proves my allegations.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


I am done posting to you ...I mean* its ridiculous to believe that Science has no data* LOL I mean I am laughing as I type because that is* outlandish..*.there is no way to discuss this with  you.... absurd


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have to explain it...I only have to point out that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the claim and the fact that you can't provide any, nor can anyone else does nothing but prove my point...I suspect that money, politics, and political power are responsible...those factors have been known to buy scientific opinion in the past...
> ...



So where is the observed, measured, quantified data that supports the hypothesis?  You don't seem to be able to find it...I believe that you believe it exists, but I know that you can't post any of it...why?...because in spite of what you believe...it doesn't exist.


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> [
> I am done posting to you ...I mean* its ridiculous to believe that Science has no data* LOL I mean I am laughing as I type because that is* outlandish..*.there is no way to discuss this with  you.... absurd



Of courseyou are...it must be frustrating to be proven wrong on every post...you can't find any observed, measured, quantified data to support the claims...so you are left making excuses...that can't be any fun...you could easily prove how outlandish I am by posting the observed, measured, quantified data...but you won't....I am supremely confident that you won't....why am I so confident?...because there is no observed, measured, quantified data for you to post.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


LOL


----------



## RollingThunder (May 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> So where is the observed, measured, quantified data that supports the hypothesis?  You don't seem to be able to find it...I believe that you believe it exists, but I know that you can't post any of it...why?...because in spite of what you believe...it doesn't exist.


SSoooooDDuuuuumb's usual anti-science, head-up-ass, retarded denial of reality.


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...




Laughing like a monkey in a tree over being proven wrong.....no observed, measured, quantified evidence and you think your inability to provide even one small bit is funny?


----------



## SSDD (May 9, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



The reality, thunder, is that there is no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW....the warmer's inability to provide any at all just keeps proving me right...so you had to come in and show that you also can't provide any observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...ok...lets see you prove me right.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


They are all making it up out of the blue ..you are right ...one fine day they decided for no reason to start believing and or saying they believe in AGW ...and no data whatsoever was involved ...you are exactly right LOL


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


I don't believe in it, so why should I care to prove it. I already know there isn't back radiation.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


Making what up? You are making everything up


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


I don't, I merely ask those who buy into it what is there, and badda Bing those folks like you can't find any evidence either.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I knew you couldn't produce any, and I agree it is hilarious that you think there is evidence "there"
> ...


You haven't shown shit.. 

You've posted opinions by people who think modeling is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. You base your who logical position on failed models and opinion..

How about trying to find some real empirical evidence and get out of fantasy land.


----------



## IanC (May 9, 2016)

There are 3 main points to AGW.

The first is not really necessary except to alarm people. Has the Earth warmed? Definitely yes since the Little Ice Age. The amount is still contentious. Funny how the records supported a coming ice age in the seventies but since then have been manipulated into supporting GW. Did the scientists 'push' the numbers around to advance the calamity-of-the-day back then? Are they doing the same but in a different direction now? I think there is always pressure to support the current consensus.

More importantly, is the CO2 level rising? Does anyone doubt this? Does anyone doubt that mankind's use of fossil fuels has contributed?

The first two points are overwhelmingly supported in direction, if not necessarily in quantity, by evidence. Which I am not going to present BTW.

The third and most important point is 'does CO2 have a warming influence?' Water in its various forms has a vast influence but can we separate out CO2's effect? It's ability to absorb certain bands of IR is beyond doubt as spectography proves. The surface radiates part of its power in those bands as is proven by Planck curves for temperature. Therefore we know CO2 must have an effect because those bands do not radiate out to space at the speed of light. QED. CO2 has an effect on the energy level of the atmosphere and hence the temperature. Land surface temperature is measured at ~ one metre so it is really the atmosphere, and so 30% of the globe is necessarily affected.

I can't see how anyone can dispute this mechanism, and legitimate skeptics don't. My disagreement is with the quantities and conclusions that consensus climate science reports as a certainty.

I think water is a vastly more important GHG mainly because it both heats and cools depending on local conditions. Oceans have an upper temperature limit of ~ 30C, arid land can get 15C warmer. Evaporation and especially thunderclouds remove surface heat at a rate that dwarfs simple radiation. And it doesn't even have to be more evaporation/clouds. Just a simple adjustment of when they form is enough to change the temperature by changing the albedo.

I just hope that people on this board don't think SSDD, jc or even billybob are typical of skeptical thinking as it pertains to climate science.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Money...politics...power...take your pick...I suspect that it is all three....
> ...


Sure, the fact I money is given to the skeptics to prove the warmer's. That is odd as hell, statistically impossible.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

IanC said:


> There are 3 main points to AGW.
> 
> The first is not really necessary except to alarm people. Has the Earth warmed? Definitely yes since the Little Ice Age. The amount is still contentious. Funny how the records supported a coming ice age in the seventies but since then have been manipulated into supporting GW. Did the scientists 'push' the numbers around to advance the calamity-of-the-day back then? Are they doing the same but in a different direction now? I think there is always pressure to support the current consensus.
> 
> ...


Dude, I'm disappointed in you, basic science says there must be evidence to prove a hypothetical position. There isn't any. And yet you believe. Wow


----------



## RollingThunder (May 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> So where is the observed, measured, quantified data that supports the hypothesis?  You don't seem to be able to find it...I believe that you believe it exists, but I know that you can't post any of it...why?...because in spite of what you believe...it doesn't exist.





RollingThunder said:


> SSoooooDDuuuuumb's usual anti-science, head-up-ass, retarded denial of reality.





SSDD said:


> The reality, thunder, is that there is no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW....the warmer's inability to provide any at all just keeps proving me right...so you had to come in and show that you also can't provide any observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...ok...lets see you prove me right.



Your denier cult myths are insane nonsense.

In case you missed it, nitwit....

*First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface*
*Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations*
Berkeley Lab
Dan Krotz
FEBRUARY 25, 2015


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So where is the observed, measured, quantified data that supports the hypothesis?  You don't seem to be able to find it...I believe that you believe it exists, but I know that you can't post any of it...why?...because in spite of what you believe...it doesn't exist.
> ...


Yep CO2 is rising, and temperatures are not. Hmmm now you have a dilemma


----------



## RollingThunder (May 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> So where is the observed, measured, quantified data that supports the hypothesis?  You don't seem to be able to find it...I believe that you believe it exists, but I know that you can't post any of it...why?...because in spite of what you believe...it doesn't exist.





RollingThunder said:


> SSoooooDDuuuuumb's usual anti-science, head-up-ass, retarded denial of reality.





SSDD said:


> The reality, thunder, is that there is no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW....the warmer's inability to provide any at all just keeps proving me right...so you had to come in and show that you also can't provide any observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...ok...lets see you prove me right.





RollingThunder said:


> Your denier cult myths are insane nonsense.
> 
> In case you missed it, nitwit....
> 
> ...





jc456 said:


> Yep CO2 is rising, and temperatures are not. Hmmm now you have a dilemma



Nope! You have a dilemma. You're bonkers!

*2015 shatters record for warmest year globally by largest margin yet
AccuWeather*
By Katy Galimberti, AccuWeather.com Staff Writer
January 25, 2016
*Not to be upstaged by the previous year, 2015 was globally the warmest year since records began in 1880, according to NASA and NOAA.

The average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.62 F (0.90 C) above the 20th century average, NOAA said. Surpassing 2014's record by 0.29 F (0.16 C), this is the largest margin by which the annual global temperature record has been broken.

Fifteen of the 16 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001.

*****

NOAA - State of the Climate
Global Analysis - March 2016
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for March 2016 was the highest for this month in the 1880–2016 record, at 1.22°C (2.20°F) above the 20th century average of 12.7°C (54.9°F). This surpassed the previous record set in 2015 by 0.32°C / (0.58°F), and marks the highest monthly temperature departure among all 1,635 months on record, surpassing the previous all-time record set just last month by 0.01°C (0.02°F). Overall, the nine highest monthly temperature departures in the record have all occurred in the past nine months. March 2016 also marks the 11th consecutive month a monthly global temperature record has been broken, the longest such streak in NOAA's 137 years of record keeping.

The first three months of 2016 were the warmest such period on record across the world's land and ocean surfaces, at 1.15°C (2.07°F) above the 20th century average of 12.3°C (54.1°F), surpassing the previous record set in 2015 by 0.28°C (0.50°F) and surpassing January-March 1998, the last time during this period a similar strength El Niño occurred, by 0.45°C (0.81°F). January–March 2016 also marks the highest deaprture from average for any three-month period on record. This record has been broken for seven consecutive months, since the July–September 2015 period. 

The average global sea surface temperature for the year-to-date was the highest for January–March in the 137-year period of record, at 0.82°C (1.48°F) above average, surpassing the previous records set in 2010 and 2015 by 0.21°C (0.38°F) and surpassing January–March 1998 by 0.27°C (0.49°F). The average land surface temperature was also record high, at 2.05°C (3.69°F) above average, surpassing the previous record of 2015 by 0.47°C (0.85°F) and surpassing January-March 1998 by 0.95°C (1.71°F). 

Record warmth was observed in various areas around the globe. An almost continuous swath of this warmth was observed from southern Africa to the North Indian Ocean to parts of southeastern Asia stretching into northern Australia. Additionally, parts of every inhabited continent and every major ocean basin had some regions with record warmth for the year-to-date.

*****






(Graph: Japan Meteorological Agency)
*


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So where is the observed, measured, quantified data that supports the hypothesis?  You don't seem to be able to find it...I believe that you believe it exists, but I know that you can't post any of it...why?...because in spite of what you believe...it doesn't exist.
> ...


Sure, we all know the data was manipulated. Yeppers, we know that , oh I mean corrected, LOL


----------



## IanC (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > There are 3 main points to AGW.
> ...




Be more specific in your complaint. Where do you feel my logic failed? I gave you general principles rather than precise figures so that we must come to general agreement or disagreement before we quibble over admittedly important details.

Do you disagree that heat rising is a gravity based phenomena? I have no doubt that googling candle in an elevator would give you an enlightening experience. Spectography and the absorption/emission of gases has been studied for centuries. Surely you don't think the basis for many of our medical instruments is a hoax?

What exactly do you find fault with? Perhaps I can send you on the right path to find the understanding and evidence you seek. Although I doubt it. You have made progress before, only to backslide into superstition.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> The reality, thunder, is that there is no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW....the warmer's inability to provide any at all just keeps proving me right...so you had to come in and show that you also can't provide any observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...ok...lets see you prove me right.





RollingThunder said:


> Your denier cult myths are insane nonsense.
> 
> In case you missed it, nitwit....
> 
> ...





jc456 said:


> Yep CO2 is rising, and temperatures are not. Hmmm now you have a dilemma





RollingThunder said:


> Nope! You have a dilemma. You're bonkers!
> 
> *2015 shatters record for warmest year globally by largest margin yet
> AccuWeather*
> ...





jc456 said:


> Sure, we all know the data was manipulated. Yeppers, we know that , oh I mean corrected, LOL



I guess you denier cult lunatics have no idea how utterly crazy you sound when you try to explain away all of the scientific evidence and testimony supporting the reality of human caused, CO2 driven global warming by resorting to your completely crackpot and insane conspiracy theory about all of the world's scientists being in a huge plot to fake the data.

Everybody else sees your utter insanity quite clearly though, and so we can also see how brainwashed and bamboozled you ignorant, moronic rightwingnuts really are.


----------



## SSDD (May 10, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...




You can't find any observed, measured, quantified data..none of your buds can find any observed, measured, quantified data...climate science isn't providing any observed, measured, quantified data...you explain it....I have no explanation, only the steadily bolstered (by warmers) that there is no observed, measured, quantified data.


----------



## SSDD (May 10, 2016)

IanC  said:
			
		

> There are 3 main points to AGW.
> 
> The first is not really necessary except to alarm people. Has the Earth warmed? Definitely yes since the Little Ice Age. The amount is still contentious. Funny how the records supported a coming ice age in the seventies but since then have been manipulated into supporting GW. Did the scientists 'push' the numbers around to advance the calamity-of-the-day back then? Are they doing the same but in a different direction now? I think there is always pressure to support the current consensus.
> 
> ...



No one is arguing those points....but those points, don't even amount to even a small amount of evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.



			
				IanC said:
			
		

> The third and most important point is 'does CO2 have a warming influence?' Water in its various forms has a vast influence but can we separate out CO2's effect? It's ability to absorb certain bands of IR is beyond doubt as spectography proves. The surface radiates part of its power in those bands as is proven by Planck curves for temperature. Therefore we know CO2 must have an effect because those bands do not radiate out to space at the speed of light. QED. CO2 has an effect on the energy level of the atmosphere and hence the temperature. Land surface temperature is measured at ~ one metre so it is really the atmosphere, and so 30% of the globe is necessarily affected.



And there is where assumption takes over for observed, measured, quantified evidence...you are talking about phenomena which should be observable, measurable, and quantifiable...but not the first bit of data exists..  Absorption and emission do not equal warming...there is absolutely no evidence proving that assumption...there, is in fact, no evidence of the observed, measured, quantified variety proving any of the assumptions upon which the A in AGW is based.



			
				IanC said:
			
		

> I can't see how anyone can dispute this mechanism, and legitimate skeptics don't. My disagreement is with the quantities and conclusions that consensus climate science reports as a certainty.



It is a physical phenomenon that supposedly causes a physical change in the temperature of the atmosphere at ambient temperature, and yet, it can not be measured at ambient temperature...it is an artifact of a mathematical model...unobserved, unmeasured, unquantified...and that is the bottom line.


----------



## Crick (May 10, 2016)

Ian (and Sid), do you actually think you've thought of something that thousands of PhD scientists have not? Or are we back to the conspiracy?  Seems to me, Ian, that those are your ONLY two choices with that post.


----------



## SSDD (May 10, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So where is the observed, measured, quantified data that supports the hypothesis?  You don't seem to be able to find it...I believe that you believe it exists, but I know that you can't post any of it...why?...because in spite of what you believe...it doesn't exist.
> ...



Ad what do you want to be that the measurements were made with instruments cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....same old game thunder...and nothing unsurprising....increase the amount of CO2...and of course there is more CO2 to radiate to the cooled instrument...of course it still can't be measured at ambient temperature although the change in the atmospheric temperature is supposed to happen at the ambient temperature....more bait and switch and no evidence supporting the A in AGW...

What they showed is that energy will move from the warmer atmosphere to a cooler instrument and if you have more CO2 then you can get marginally more energy transferring to the cooler instrument....how do you suppose that supports the A in AGW?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 10, 2016)

SSDD said:


> You can't find any observed, measured, quantified data..none of your buds can find any observed, measured, quantified data...climate science isn't providing any observed, measured, quantified data...



I already agreed with you guys and your version of AGW...all of a sudden Science and Scientific agencies abandoned the Scientific method and came up, absent ANY DATA, with the AGW reality...no measurement no nothing...NOAA NASA the UK and Japanese Met they all said "screw data" lets just believe in AGW and that is how it is what more do you want LOL





I know its weird but that is what happened ...you all are Geniuses


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> Ian (and Sid), do you actually think you've thought of something that thousands of PhD scientists have not? Or are we back to the conspiracy?  Seems to me, Ian, that those are your ONLY two choices with that post.


SSDD says none of those scientific agencies use data ...they just decided one day at a meeting on  the AGW position
...SSDD ,clearly an Einstein, discovered this anomaly...

Rising Sea Levels Swallow 5 Pacific Islands


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The reality, thunder, is that there is no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW....the warmer's inability to provide any at all just keeps proving me right...so you had to come in and show that you also can't provide any observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...ok...lets see you prove me right.
> ...


so any actual scientist would test the CO2 hypothesis.  So, I'm happy to give up the fight once that experiment is produced that can show the magic of the CO2.  Just one fking experiment.  All these scientific organizations you all keep referring to, and yet not a fken one of em can you find that have that elusive experiment.  Hmmmmm, yeah, I'm calling em liars.  you really think it matters what you think of that?  Really?  Dude I don't know you from jack and I have a belief system that is requiring the experiment.  Just one little one that shows when you put CO2 in a environment and hit with LWIR waves that it back scatters hotter than what was absorbed.  Just one.  I'm more worried about you and your belief system.  Someone says something therefore it is cause they have PHD after their name.  hahahaahahahahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## jon_berzerk (May 10, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> A shit load of appeals to authority and no science to back up any claim your making..  The run in circles never stops.  Claim you have consensus, claim you have science, claim your political groups agenda statements are fact based on failed modeling..
> 
> But not once is real, observed, quantifiable data found or used..
> 
> ...




you dont need any of that when it is faith based


----------



## Wuwei (May 10, 2016)

SSDD said:


> The reality, thunder, is that there is no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW....the warmer's inability to provide any at all just keeps proving me right...so you had to come in and show that you also can't provide any observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...ok...lets see you prove me right.


You keep harping on the same thing. You were given observed, measured, quantified spectroscopic data that showed downward radiation from all the green house gasses including CO2. That is the basis for keeping the earth from losing heat. Why can't you understand that. It's so simple.


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


The fact that you believe in this CO2 magic without any evidence, only some mathematical model.  That isn't science.  IT IS NOT SCIENCE.  Science tests, period to validate the model.  I hope people on this board understand that there is no evidence to support the magic.  Zero.  If I missed it, I'm confident Frank or SSDD would have seen it. Even Billy, yet, here we are today, this morning discussing that the magic has never been validated.  BTW studied is not observed.  Another fallacy that many in here seem to attach to.  Cause someone studied it, it must be so.  Wow.  I live in a real world and I know what I observe.  

As for the heat transfer concerning gravity.  Why does a hot air balloon fly when there is gravity?  yep fill a balloon with heat and up she goes.  Since I'm not a science major I don't know all of the physics to it, but it would tell me that hot air is lighter than cold air.  Collect it and it will make an object float even while there is gravity.  Pressure and volume also comes into play.  

You'll probably tell me that cold air displaces the hot air.  And yet if you have gravity why does that happen?  Again pressure and weight, hot is lighter than cold.  Or do you disagree with that?

Dude, I'm not sure how you are a skeptic when you champion the CO2 nonsense.  That's my point.  You seem to be at conflict with your ownself.


----------



## SSDD (May 10, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Ian (and Sid), do you actually think you've thought of something that thousands of PhD scientists have not? Or are we back to the conspiracy?  Seems to me, Ian, that those are your ONLY two choices with that post.
> ...



Never fails...when you guys see that you are losing, you start lying...I never said that they had no data...I said that they had none of a certain kind of data...that being, observed, measured, quantified data...they have plenty of data...most of it from models, or based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models, but they call it data..and they have data showing that if you cool an instrument to temperatures cooler than the atmosphere, energy will move from the atmosphere to the instrument...none of which supports the A in AGW...


----------



## SSDD (May 10, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The reality, thunder, is that there is no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW....the warmer's inability to provide any at all just keeps proving me right...so you had to come in and show that you also can't provide any observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...ok...lets see you prove me right.
> ...



No wuwei...I was shown data gathered with a cooled instrument.....what was shown that is if you cool an instrument to a temperature lower than the atmosphere, that energy will move from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...I am not sure how you think that supports the A in AGW...


----------



## Wuwei (May 10, 2016)

SSDD said:


> No wuwei...I was shown data gathered with a cooled instrument.....what was shown that is if you cool an instrument to a temperature lower than the atmosphere, that energy will move from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...I am not sure how you think that supports the A in AGW...


So what if the instrument is cooled. That makes the data more trustworthy - reduces noise and cuts the self radiation of the housing to the detector. The radiation was still downward and matched the spectra of the green house gasses.


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No wuwei...I was shown data gathered with a cooled instrument.....what was shown that is if you cool an instrument to a temperature lower than the atmosphere, that energy will move from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...I am not sure how you think that supports the A in AGW...
> ...


you have no idea what is being seen on that scope.  You assume it's some sort of radiation only.  nothing more.  And the fact that it's cooled is the only way to draw the wave to the meter.  doesn't mean it is there all the time.  Again, something you can't prove.


----------



## SSDD (May 10, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No wuwei...I was shown data gathered with a cooled instrument.....what was shown that is if you cool an instrument to a temperature lower than the atmosphere, that energy will move from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...I am not sure how you think that supports the A in AGW...
> ...




What do you mean so what if the instrument is cooled?...that is a critical bit of information....if you are measuring energy moving from a warmer object (the atmosphere) to a cooler object (the instrument) you are not measuring back radiation or back scatter or back anything...you are simply measuring energy moving from a warm object to a cool object...nothing special there....and who says that direction is important...it isn't...hold a hot iron over your hand...the radiation is warming your hand, but it isn't back radiation...it is just radiation moving from a hot object to a cooler object....it is called fooling yourself with instrumentation....and by the way...did you notice that the area that they measured in alaska actually cooled several degrees during the time of the "observation"...does that mean that CO2 forces cooling?


----------



## SSDD (May 10, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



It is a bit humorous...they think energy moving from a warm object to a cool object is back radiation...and wuewi apparently believes that because it is moving from a higher altitude down to the cooled instrument on the ground that makes it back radiation...Earlier he said to you "Yes you did say that. You denied back radiation. The heat from the bottom of the iron is radiation downward. QED. You were clamoring about heat only rising. You are referring to conduction, not radiation."

The heat is simply moving from the warm iron to your warmer hand...direction makes no difference...backradiation would be energy from your cool hand moving to the hot iron....again...simply not happening...of course if you could theoretically put an instrument on the iron that is kept cooler than your hand I suppose you could measure energy moving from your warmer hand to the cooler instrument..


----------



## Wuwei (May 10, 2016)

SSDD said:


> What do you mean so what if the instrument is cooled?...that is a critical bit of information....if you are measuring energy moving from a warmer object (the atmosphere) to a cooler object (the instrument) you are not measuring back radiation or back scatter or back anything...you are simply measuring energy moving from a warm object to a cool object.


Yes it is a bit of critical info. It makes the detector reading more trustworthy. The radiation measured was moving downward. The detector was facing upward. That makes it observed, measured, quantified spectroscopic data of downward radiation, commonly called back radiation. The instrument was specifically measuring radiation, not just any type of downward energy. As you know radiation can move from objects at any temperature to other objects at any temperature.



SSDD said:


> .and who says that direction is important...it isn't...hold a hot iron over your hand...the radiation is warming your hand, but it isn't back radiation...it is just radiation moving from a hot object to a cooler object....it is called fooling yourself with instrumentation....and by the way...did you notice that the area that they measured in alaska actually cooled several degrees during the time of the "observation"...does that mean that CO2 forces cooling?


A bunch of rambling.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 10, 2016)

SSDD said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


----------



## Wuwei (May 10, 2016)

SSDD said:


> ...they think energy moving from a warm object to a cool object is back radiation...


Not true. Specifically the scientist believe that atmospheric spectra that show GHGs *radiation *moving downward is back radiation.  The bold faced word radiation is to emphasize that it is *radiation* under discussion not just the more generic term *energy*.


----------



## IanC (May 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Dude, I'm not sure how you are a skeptic when you champion the CO2 nonsense.  That's my point.  You seem to be at conflict with your ownself.



you seem to have a seriously flawed concept of what a skeptic is. a skeptic is someone who doesnt believe in anything until the evidence is sufficient to convince him that it is true, and is always willing to look at more evidence and change his position if necessary. I am just as skeptical about 'skeptical' climate science positions as I am about 'consensus' climate science positions. they have to meet the same burden of proof. I wont agree with something I believe to be false just because it comes from 'my' side. in fact, I am offended when the skeptical side stoops to telling the same type of lies, or exaggerations, as the consensus side.

you seem to be under SSDD's sway, and believe his nonsense about smart photons etc. presumably it is just because you have no physics background, or because you like his air of bravado and confidence. he is still wrong and/or confused about almost everything he says.

I will try again to point you in the right direction but it is you who has to think things through.

Thermal radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , basic boilerplate information, the first paragraph-



> *Thermal radiation* is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of charged particles in matter. All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation. When the temperature of the body is greater than absolute zero, inter-atomic collisions cause the kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules to change. This results in charge-acceleration and/or dipole oscillation which produces electromagnetic radiation, and the wide spectrum of radiation reflects the wide spectrum of energies and accelerations that occur even at a single temperature.



this is what I have been telling you for years. the speed and direction of random molecules are not controlled by the temperature of some receiving matter in the future. the idea that they are is absurd! how would they change direction? who/what would decide? where would the energy come from? what would be the effect on momentum and entropy? SSDD is wrong!

I have tried, without success, to get SSDD to describe what he thinks is happening to radiation when two objects are at the same temperature. he says no energy is exchanged, and then refuses to discuss anything further, like the loss of momentum and entropy change. 

Black-body radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , more boilerplate -



> Two bodies that are at the same temperature stay in mutual thermal equilibrium, so a body at temperature _T_ surrounded by a cloud of light at temperature _T_ on average will emit as much light into the cloud as it absorbs, following Prevost's exchange principle, which refers to radiative equilibrium. The principle of detailed balance says that in thermodynamic equilibrium every elementary process works equally in its forward and backward sense.[21][22] *Prevost also showed that the emission from a body is logically determined solely by its own internal state. The causal effect of thermodynamic absorption on thermodynamic (spontaneous) emission is not direct, but is only indirect as it affects the internal state of the body.* This means that at thermodynamic equilibrium the amount of every wavelength in every direction of thermal radiation emitted by a body at temperature _T_, black or not, is equal to the corresponding amount that the body absorbs because it is surrounded by light at temperature _T_.[23]



these are basic principles. needless to say reality gets messy very quickly but how difficult would physics be if we didnt acknowledge Newton's first law, something that is never seen in our day-to-day life?


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And when you can't find it, ask yourself upon what are they making their claims?
> ...



I have looked....and couldn't find the first shred....so I ask people who believe thinking that you must have seen it in order to believe...I mean, who would believe without actually having seen observed, measured, quantified evidence...and what do you know...you haven't seen it either...you claim to have, but you haven't as evidenced by your inability to bring any of it here.


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Which evidence would it be that has left the skeptics unconvinced?
> ...



I can come up with all sorts of data that climate science uses....model output...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...corleatory data...but no observed, measured, quantified data supporting the A in AGW...that is my entire point and the fact that you warmers can't bring any forward only proves my point.


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Yes it is a bit of critical info. It makes the detector reading more trustworthy. The radiation measured was moving downward. The detector was facing upward. That makes it observed, measured, quantified spectroscopic data of downward radiation, commonly called back radiation. The instrument was specifically measuring radiation, not just any type of downward energy. As you know radiation can move from objects at any temperature to other objects at any temperature.



It makes the instrument readings useless because energy moving from a warm object to a cooler object is not back radiation or back scatter or anything else....you may as well be trying to weigh yourself with a thermometer...



SSDD said:


> .and who says that direction is important...it isn't...hold a hot iron over your hand...the radiation is warming your hand, but it isn't back radiation...it is just radiation moving from a hot object to a cooler object....it is called fooling yourself with instrumentation....and by the way...did you notice that the area that they measured in alaska actually cooled several degrees during the time of the "observation"...does that mean that CO2 forces cooling?


A bunch of rambling.[/QUOTE]

You think energy moving from a hot iron held above your hand to your hand is back radiation?   You claimed it was....is that what you really think?  Are you that confused?


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ...they think energy moving from a warm object to a cool object is back radiation...
> ...



You mean the energy they measured moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument?...that is no more back radiation than the energy moving downward from the hot iron to your cooler hand....back radiation would be energy moving from your cooler hand back to the hot iron...movement that isn't actually happening and can't be measured, but claimed by a mathematical model...an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2016)

IanC said:


> you seem to have a seriously flawed concept of what a skeptic is. a skeptic is someone who doesnt believe in anything until the evidence is sufficient to convince him that it is true, and is always willing to look at more evidence and change his position if necessary.



Hey, that's me....tell me Ian, which observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered out here in the real observable, measurable, quantifiable world regarding the observable, measurable, quantifiable, testable atmosphere convinced you?  Clearly there is none, so what convinced you?....climate models that fail within days?....unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models?....algore's inconvenient truth?  What actual evidence convinced you Ian...lets see it...maybe it will convince me if it is actual evidence that can be observed, measured and quantified?...if it isn't then is it really evidence or just something that agrees with your preconceived notions?

wuewi said something a few posts back and I can't help but wonder if you believe the same thing....he claimed that if you hold a hot iron over your hand the energy you feel warming your hand is back radiation?   Do you believe that as well?...do you believe that because the energy is moving in a direction that you perceive as down that makes it back radiation?...or do you think that back radiation would be energy moving from your hand, warmed by the iron back to the iron?....energy movement, that can't by the way be measured.


----------



## Crick (May 11, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Which evidence would it be that has left the skeptics unconvinced?





TyroneSlothrop said:


> I am sure you can come up with data or at least a link to someone or some agency that says there is no AGW ...but all you do is keep repeating nonsense





SSDD said:


> I can come up with all sorts of data that climate science uses....model output...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...corleatory data...but no observed, measured, quantified data supporting the A in AGW...that is my entire point and the fact that you warmers can't bring any forward only proves my point.



Then... why don't you?  You could start by ending the lies.  WG-I buries you in evidence but you like to pretend neither it nor the thousands of peer reviewed studies from which it was developed exist.  Makes your life easier till someone calls you on it.

You're the one that has no evidence.  You're the one whose stable of scientists looks like the back ward at Bellevue.  You're the one that has to rely on conspiracy theories and paranoid fantasies that could put you in that same ward.


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Which evidence would it be that has left the skeptics unconvinced?
> ...



What's the point?  we all know that it isn't observed, measured, quantified data...therefore it is not what I have been asking for....and by now we all know that what I have been asking for doesn't exist even though the atmosphere is a measurable, observable, quantifiable entity.


----------



## Crick (May 11, 2016)

The point is that every time you take to your keyboard, we can be guaranteed of two things: You're lying and you're wrong.


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2016)

Crick said:


> The point is that every time you take to your keyboard, we can be guaranteed of two things: You're lying and you're wrong.



Agitated because I am right crick....and you know you can't produce any actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW?...petty third grade school yard insults the best you can do these days?

Tell me crick...do you think that if you hold a hot iron above your hand and feel the heat that you are experiencing back radiation?  Are you as misinformed as wuwei? Tell me you think the energy radiating from the iron to your hand is back radiation because it is moving a a direction that you perceive as down....


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2016)

SSDD said:


> It makes the instrument readings useless because energy moving from a warm object to a cooler object is not back radiation or back scatter or anything else....you may as well be trying to weigh yourself with a thermometer...


Cooling the detector makes the detector reading more trustworthy. The radiation measured was moving downward. The detector was facing upward. That makes it observed, measured, quantified spectroscopic data of downward radiation, commonly called back radiation. The instrument was specifically measuring radiation, not just any type of downward energy. As you know radiation can move from objects at any temperature to other objects at any temperature.


SSDD said:


> You think energy moving from a hot iron held above your hand to your hand is back radiation? You claimed it was....is that what you really think? Are you that confused?


Nope to all three questions. JC was sillier than you and claimed that heat always rises and never goes downward. I told him to do that simple experiment, and he correctly surmised that it was radiation going downward. Good for him.  But bad for you for misreading the intention of the hot iron experiment.


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2016)

SSDD said:


> You mean the energy they measured moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument?...that is no more back radiation than the energy moving downward from the hot iron to your cooler hand....back radiation would be energy moving from your cooler hand back to the hot iron...movement that isn't actually happening and can't be measured, but claimed by a mathematical model...an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model.


Cooling the detector makes the detector reading more accurate. The the experiment measured radiation moving downward. The detector was facing upward. That makes it observed, measured, quantified spectroscopic data of downward radiation, commonly called back radiation. As you know radiation can move from objects at any temperature to other objects at any temperature.


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2016)

SSDD said:


> wuewi said something a few posts back and I can't help but wonder if you believe the same thing....he claimed that if you hold a hot iron over your hand the energy you feel warming your hand is back radiation?


That is a lie. I told Popeye that it was radiation moving downward. I never said it was back radiation. Go back and read it. Is that the best argument you have now? Lying?


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Tell me crick...do you think that if you hold a hot iron above your hand and feel the heat that you are experiencing back radiation? Are you as misinformed as wuwei? Tell me you think the energy radiating from the iron to your hand is back radiation because it is moving a a direction that you perceive as down....


You are lying again. Go back and read my discussion with Popeye.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 11, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


No one cares about your denial....you are isolated .....


----------



## IanC (May 11, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > you seem to have a seriously flawed concept of what a skeptic is. a skeptic is someone who doesnt believe in anything until the evidence is sufficient to convince him that it is true, and is always willing to look at more evidence and change his position if necessary.
> ...




OK, let's use an iron for the example.

before you turn it on it is in equilibrium with its environment, it is radiating out the same amount of energy that it is receiving. the amount of energy that it is receiving from the environment is the back radiation. when you turn on the iron the heating element warms the plate until it comes to equilibrium, the plate's temperature is a function of energy in (heating element and environment) minus energy out (heat loss to the environment). the plate will be warmer than the environment but cooler than the heating element.

if you change the environment to a freezer then the cooler environment will send less energy back to the iron, and the equilibrium temperature will be lower.

this of course is a generalized case where we assume that the environment is not impacted by the energy coming from the iron, and the iron's heat source is constantly producing the same amount of heat energy. in reality the iron is controlled by a thermostat, so it would run more often in the freezer rather than come to a cooler equilibrium temp. either way the environmental energy input will affect the temperature or the amount of electricity needed to maintain the temperature.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 11, 2016)

*Animation shows how global warming is spiraling out of control

Climate scientist at University of Reading | IPCC AR5 Author & NERC Research Fellow | Editor of @ClimateLabBook blog


Ed Hawkins ‏@ed_hawkins 
Spiralling global temperatures from 1850-2016 (full animation) http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2016/spiralling-global-temperatures/…






*


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2016)

IanC said:


> OK, let's use an iron for the example.
> 
> before you turn it on it is in equilibrium with its environment, it is radiating out the same amount of energy that it is receiving. the amount of energy that it is receiving from the environment is the back radiation. when you turn on the iron the heating element warms the plate until it comes to equilibrium, the plate's temperature is a function of energy in (heating element and environment) minus energy out (heat loss to the environment). the plate will be warmer than the environment but cooler than the heating element.
> 
> ...


Thank you for the more detailed explanation. An experiment with an iron does demonstrate a radiation exchange environment as you explained. 

My objection to SSDD is that he uses the word "back radiation" which is used in climate science, but not in a general setting such as feeling heat from a hot iron. As you imply if you really do want to use the term back radiation with a hot iron, it would be the hand - the cooler object - that is back radiating to the iron. But as we all know far more radiation energy will go from the iron to the hand than the hand to the iron, as it does in the physics of the atmosphere.


----------



## IanC (May 11, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > OK, let's use an iron for the example.
> ...




The problem with the atmosphere is that there are so many other variables to consider. 

Even the example of the iron is problematic. If you put it in space, would the plate be warmer or cooler than on the surface? Conduction and convection are much more efficient at removing heat. Would loss of environmental input make up for the other pathways at equilibrium? I don't know for sure.


----------



## Wuwei (May 11, 2016)

IanC said:


> The problem with the atmosphere is that there are so many other variables to consider.
> 
> Even the example of the iron is problematic. If you put it in space, would the plate be warmer or cooler than on the surface? Conduction and convection are much more efficient at removing heat. Would loss of environmental input make up for the other pathways at equilibrium? I don't know for sure.


I agree that is the crux of the problem with global warming. To simply say that back radiation doesn't exist and therefore climate models are fraudulent, as SSDD does, is first of all a misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermo. Secondly, as you say there are plenty of other modeling difficulties that would still remain if he did believe in back radiation. 

The hot iron was a simple example of feeling radiation going downward, but I agree radiation alone is totally inadequate to cover the full dynamics of the iron, let alone the atmosphere.


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It makes the instrument readings useless because energy moving from a warm object to a cooler object is not back radiation or back scatter or anything else....you may as well be trying to weigh yourself with a thermometer...
> ...


I also stated that if you have an amber the heat off that amber is all around the amber.  The amber is the source, but now in order for it to get warmer, it requires the air around it to radiate back to it.  At least that is your theory.  I merely ask if you believe that is so?


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with the atmosphere is that there are so many other variables to consider.
> ...


but you can't provide any evidence that happens.  Why is that so difficult for someone who appears to have some smarts about you?  There is zero evidence that a back radiation exists in the atmosphere.  ZERO.  Otherwise it would have been posted by now.


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > wuewi said something a few posts back and I can't help but wonder if you believe the same thing....he claimed that if you hold a hot iron over your hand the energy you feel warming your hand is back radiation?
> ...



Sorry guy...I don't lie...You said...in post #500:



			
				wuwei said:
			
		

> Yes you did say that. You denied back radiation. The heat from the bottom of the iron is radiation downward. QED.



He denied back radiation and you said that the radiation is downward...QED...._quod erat demonstrandum...._which is what had to be proven..  You stated explicitly that the downward radiation proves back radiation....you said what you said....


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Tell me crick...do you think that if you hold a hot iron above your hand and feel the heat that you are experiencing back radiation? Are you as misinformed as wuwei? Tell me you think the energy radiating from the iron to your hand is back radiation because it is moving a a direction that you perceive as down....
> ...




Again, I don't lie...post #500 in this thread...



			
				wuwei said:
			
		

> Yes you did say that. You denied back radiation. The heat from the bottom of the iron is radiation downward. QED.



He denied back radiation and you said that the radiation is downward...QED...._quod erat demonstrandum...._which is what had to be proven..  You stated explicitly that the downward radiation proves back radiation....you said what you said....


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



I am never isolated...and it is you who is in denial.....no observed, measured, quantified evidence exists and yet you can't accept the fact...you have been in denial of that reality since this conversation started...and I must say, watching you deny the obvious has been quite entertaining....were there any actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW surely you, or someone would have brought it here to show me how wrong I am.  Hasn't happened, nor will it.


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




So unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mind experiments are what have convinced you....OK..  I knew that it wasn't observed, measured, quantified data since  none exists but wondered what convinced you...clearly, you aren't much of a skeptic and probably shouldn't call yourself one since it didn't take much to convince you...in fact, it apparently took no actual evidence, even bad evidence at all...just a lousy mind experiment...to bad...


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Animation shows how global warming is spiraling out of control
> 
> Climate scientist at University of Reading | IPCC AR5 Author & NERC Research Fellow | Editor of @ClimateLabBook blog
> 
> ...



Really?...a fraction of a degree in a hundred years mostly due to an el nino and data manipulation...you call that spiraling out of control?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



*but you can't provide any evidence that happens.
*
You don't believe all matter above 0K radiates in all directions all the time?

*There is zero evidence that a back radiation exists in the atmosphere.
*
Why can it get chilly in the desert at night?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 11, 2016)

SSDD said:


> I am never isolated...and it is you who is in denial.....no observed, measured, quantified evidence exists and yet you can't accept the fact...you have been in denial of that reality since this conversation started...and I must say, watching you deny the obvious has been quite entertaining....were there any actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW surely you, or someone would have brought it here to show me how wrong I am.  Hasn't happened, nor will it.



Look I am not going to weight your opinion over this guy sorry...he out classes you

*Climate scientist at University of Reading | IPCC AR5 Author & NERC Research Fellow | Editor of @ClimateLabBook blog


Ed Hawkins ‏@ed_hawkins *


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I am never isolated...and it is you who is in denial.....no observed, measured, quantified evidence exists and yet you can't accept the fact...you have been in denial of that reality since this conversation started...and I must say, watching you deny the obvious has been quite entertaining....were there any actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW surely you, or someone would have brought it here to show me how wrong I am.  Hasn't happened, nor will it.
> ...


So bring some observed, measured, quantified evidence from him....and when you can find none, you will be right back where you are....denying the fact that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the A in AGW.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 11, 2016)

SSDD said:


> So bring some observed, measured, quantified evidence from him....and when you can find none, you will be right back where you are....denying the fact that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the A in AGW.


you are the one claiming that you have more knowledge than the Scientific world does...how about proving that you know more than NOAA NASA the Metereological Government agencies ...come on you claim they are wrong ...you show your cards LOL


----------



## SSDD (May 11, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So bring some observed, measured, quantified evidence from him....and when you can find none, you will be right back where you are....denying the fact that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the A in AGW.
> ...



Try to keep up guy...I am not claiming any such thing...I am simply stating that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...and every time you fail to provide any such evidence, you further prove me right...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 11, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Try to keep up guy...I am not claiming any such thing...I am simply stating that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...and every time you fail to provide any such evidence, you further prove me right...




Since Science is based on observation and the scientific world says AGW is real...then yes you are saying they are wrong and you have some sort of "better understanding of Climate" OK prove you have a greater understanding of climate using your data ..if any..

you are in effect saying that the conclusion of Climate Science is wrong because it is not based on observation...what did they base their AGW conclusions in ? Go ahead let it all hang out LOL


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


because there is no moisture in the air to reflect the LWIR waves back down.  It's why it is a desert. 

And, I already stated that all matter emits, other factors such as weight, pressure, volume density convection all come into play.  I tell you what, why don't you post the experiment that shows atmospheric CO2 radiating to the surface.


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Try to keep up guy...I am not claiming any such thing...I am simply stating that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...and every time you fail to provide any such evidence, you further prove me right...
> ...


I'm not sure you can say wrong.  i can say they haven't proved it and not me telling them they are wrong.  They haven't done the science expected, and all we're asking is to show the science that directed the conclusion.  yet none exists.  And science procedures includes observations and testing.  Where are they?  The story is incomplete.  I can point to anomalies that don't line up. Such as the US and it's winters over the last 30 years.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> I'm not sure you can say wrong.  i can say they haven't proved it



They have proved it to the point no one writes peer reviewed papers saying AGW is not real...what you think is unimportant...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
because there is no moisture in the air to reflect the LWIR waves back down
*
Reflect? Don't you mean absorb and re-emit?
Sounds like you realize that clouds are part of back radiation.
*
And, I already stated that all matter emits
*
There you go, admitting back radiation.
*
I tell you what, why don't you post the experiment that shows atmospheric CO2 radiating to the surface.*

I have something better.
*
I already stated that all matter emits,
*
Your admission, no experiment needed.


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure you can say wrong.  i can say they haven't proved it
> ...


dude, really?  Peer review?  really?  you know what that is right, the good old boys club, scratch my back I'll scratch yours group?  hahahaahahahahahahahaha


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Reflect? Don't you mean absorb and re-emit?
Sounds like you realize that clouds are part of back radiation.*
I never said anything about re-emit. where, show me. I said REFLECT and I didn't studder.

Do the suns rays reflect off of clouds? you seem to think the clouds don't reflect.  hmmmmmmmmm now that is funny.


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*There you go, admitting back radiation.*
Nope, never said anything about back radiation.  Just because matter emits does not qualify it as back anything.  If I have a hot amber it emits in every direction, it is not back radiation. A hot iron is not back radiation, but emits all around it.  I already mentioned all of that in other posts.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes, you said reflect.
How reflective is water vapor?

*Do the suns rays reflect off of clouds?
*
Does IR act differently than sunlight?

*you seem to think the clouds don't reflect
*
You seem to think the clouds don't absorb.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
Nope, never said anything about back radiation. 
Just because matter emits does not qualify it as back anything.
*
Matter radiates. If the atmosphere radiates, how is that not back radiation?
*
If I have a hot amber it emits in every direction, it is not back radiation.*

When the objects around the amber radiate back to it, as you admitted, that's back radiation.


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*How reflective is water vapor?*

It would be based on volume.


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


BTW, since it gets chilly in the desert at night, why isn't the CO2 back radiation warming it up?


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 how do you know the radiated wave makes it back, if the amber emitting is still emitting?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*BTW, since it gets chilly in the desert at night, why isn't the CO2 back radiation warming it up?
*
It is.  But water vapor isn't. Water vapor is a much more important greenhouse gas than CO2.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*how do you know the radiated wave makes it back
*
What would stop it?


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


the amber emitting and any other matter emitting


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


_
The study of clouds, where they occur, and their characteristics, play a key role in the understanding of climate change. Low, thick clouds primarily reflect solar radiation and cool the surface of the Earth. *High, thin clouds primarily transmit incoming solar radiation; at the same time, they trap some of the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by the Earth and radiate it back downward, *thereby warming the surface of the Earth. Whether a given cloud will heat or cool the surface depends on several factors, including the cloud's altitude, its size, and the make-up of the particles that form the cloud. The balance between the cooling and warming actions of clouds is very close although, overall, averaging the effects of all the clouds around the globe, cooling predominates._

Clouds & Radiation Fact Sheet : Feature Articles

If you find anything about water vapor reflecting infrared, please share.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Photons moved toward the hot amber are not stopped by photons moving away from the hot amber.

It's not like they're pushing on each other.


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


then why doesn't the hot amber get hotter?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Hotter than what?


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


than the temp it is while it is emitting.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The *Stefan–Boltzmann law* describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body _radiant exitance_ or _emissive power_), 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature _T_:

Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## IanC (May 11, 2016)

WTF is hot amber? Isn't amber fossilized tree sap? Why is it hot?

jc - are you confusing two very different situations? One situation is two objects of differing temperatures coming to equilibrium with no outside power input. They will move in opposite directions until they are the same temp. The other situation is when one object is being warmed by an outside source and the surrounding environment will affect the the equilibrium temperature as the heat dissipates from the source. The objects will never be at the same temperature, instead there will be a gradient of cooling temps as you get further away from the heat source.


----------



## Markle (May 11, 2016)

Matthew said:


> The people that want us all to live in the 18th century don't have much sanity or credibility. We'll see how my forecast turns out but I'd bet dollars to donuts that I'll be closer then the ice age freaks. We'd have to cool down globally nearly 1.6c for us to be in the climate little ice(18th century!), while we'd only need to stair step slightly about .1c compared to 2008-2012 temperatures for me to be right in the next 3-6 years under a neutral pattern.



Come on, 3-6 years, is relevant with regard to how long your pet dog lives.  Regarding our climate, 3-6 years doesn't mean diddly squat.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 11, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


You fucked up little idiot. Radiant heat doesn't go toward the ground? Where I work, we often have slabs of steel going down a roll line that are 20 ft long, 10 ft wide, and 4 inches thick. Coming out of the austentizing furnace, they are red hot. Now if you really believe that radiant heat won't go toward the ground there is about 30 inches clearance under the roll case. Just crawl under there and prove that no heat radiates toward the ground. I'll bring the barbeque sauce.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 11, 2016)

SSDD said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


How can you be so incredibly obtuse.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 11, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



He's had lots of practice.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Try to keep up guy...I am not claiming any such thing...I am simply stating that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...and every time you fail to provide any such evidence, you further prove me right...
> ...



I am saying that there is no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...you can't find it....none of the other warmers on this, or any other board can find it....where is it?  You claim that it exists in the links you provide but are unable to cut and paste even one example of it...do you think the climate science community is keeping it secret?....

The conclusion of climate science is not based on observed, measured, quantified data even though the atmosphere is an observable, measurable, quantifiable entity.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...





TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure you can say wrong.  i can say they haven't proved it
> ...



peer...or pal review is a joke...a proven joke...climate science papers get retracted at a rate unprecedented in any field of science.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I think he is unaware that water vapor is the only one of the so called greenhouse gasses that can absorb, and actually retain energy....it has to do with water being the only substance that we know of that can change phases in the open atmosphere....it is warmer in humid areas than it is in the desert due to the fact that humidity (water vapor} has actually stored energy and since there is little humidity in the desert, it gets cold very quickly at night...there being nothing to absorb and hold the energy still radiating from the earth.

There is little point in talking to that particular poster...he is the only person I have ever put on ignore since you bought internet time from AOL in time blocks...for a few bucks...talking to him is like talking to a child and if I am going to talk to children, I would just as soon talk to my grand kids...


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Good point....there is as much CO2 in the air in the desert as their is in more humid areas...and when you remove the water vapor, you can see just how effective CO2 is at warming....that is...it isn't because it can't...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> peer...or pal review is a joke...a proven joke...climate science papers get retracted at a rate unprecedented in any field of science.



I suppose before any science before anyone your genius on Climate rules ...LOL you are a moron


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> The conclusion of climate science is not based on observed, measured, quantified data even though the atmosphere is an observable, measurable, quantifiable entity.


Sure buddy sure ...*they do not know anything .*..its you who knows the TRUTH LOL what a moron...NOAA NASA all the Climate agencies came out with the AGW theory on a whim...sure sure they have no data LOL 
You all are just BULL GOOSE LOONY lol


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> [
> 
> I suppose before any science before anyone your genius on Climate rules ...LOL you are a moron



And neither you, nor any of your warmer wacko buds has produced the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the A in AGW....it would seem that it is you and yours who seem to have the dunce caps on....my claim stands while you and yours claim mountains of such data but can't seem to produce even the first tiny bit of it...


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The conclusion of climate science is not based on observed, measured, quantified data even though the atmosphere is an observable, measurable, quantifiable entity.
> ...



And I can't help but notice that you still haven't produced the first speck of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the A in AGW....

You do get what is supposed to happen here right?....I say that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the A in AGW which you apparently believe in fervently and hold vast faith in the climate science community that convinced you....then to show me that I am wrong...you then provide me with piece after piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence...all of which supports the A in AGW.... you show me that I am wrong and your evidence, being of the observed, measured, quantified type....and supporting the A in AGW then convinces me at which time I thank you heartily for opening my eyes to the truth because that's just the kind of guy I am....

OR...

You go about looking to all the sites that managed to convince you that the A in AGW is real and proven, and that the science is settled, but upon closer inspection, you find that there actually is no observed, measured, quantified evidence...at that point you should begin to question why you believe, when you have seen for yourself that there is actually no observed measured quantified evidence to even begin to support the A in AGW...much less to settle the science...at which point you A)  thank me for opening your eyes to the truth which I doubt would happen because you simply don't strike me as that sort of person or B) sullenly admit that you can find no such data because that's what grown ups do when they are shown that they are wrong but privately hold your beliefs anyway or C) continue to impotently claim that there is plenty of evidence. and make feeble appeals to the authority of the climate science community even though you can't find the first grain of observed measured quantified evidence supporting the A in AGW....I suspect , and predict that C will be the path you choose because all of you warmers are just that sort of people.


----------



## Crick (May 12, 2016)

Does you mother know you lie like that?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> OR...
> .


*You are an unhinged moron with the outlandish belief that no data backs AGW ...you are a stupid Mo fo...  I am not about to continue having have a discussion with someone who believes  something ridiculous like that ...*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


*you are an unhinged moron with no redeeming social value ...you are so stupid you think NASA and NOAA have no data LOL...that is the pits of stupid *


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > OR...
> ...




Hey...path C....just as I predicted....name calling, feeble appeals to an authority which even you must realize by now doesn't have any observed, measured, quantified data in support of the A in AGW.....

Let me ask you a question skid mark....which is more outlandish...my claims that there is no observed, measured, quantified data in support of the A in AGW which still stand unchallenged by even the first speck of the evidence I asked for...or your claims that such evidence exists even though it is more than apparent by now that you can't produce even the smallest grain of it?


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



And yet, you can't seem to bring even a snipped of the observed, measured, quantified data you claim they have in excess....what's wrong with that picture?


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> Does you mother know you lie like that?



It is long established that you are the liar crick...mr fake engineer who can't read even the simplest of graphs and make sense of them...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Let me ask you a question


You are a stupid moron who believes  you know more than NOAA NASA and the Climate agencies...you are so stupid you believe that those agencies came up with AGW without having data ..*.that is the pits of stupid*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


you are a moron who thinks there is no data behind AGW* ..you are a ridiculous person*


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Let me ask you a question
> ...



So you have said over and over...think up a new insult...and still, not the first trace of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the A in AGW....see a trend developing here?


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



And still not the first particle of observed, measured, quantified data in support of the A in AGW...and by the way skid mark....I never said that they had no data...they have gobs of it from unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and failed computer models...I said that they have no observed, measured, quantified data from the observable, measurable, quantifiable atmosphere in support of the A in AGW...and the fact that you and all the warmers on the board can't produce the first bit of it pretty much proves my claim to be true...if there was any to be had, I am sure it would have showed up by now....it hasn't...what does that tell you?...or are you simply to dense for it to tell you anything?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


you are a mouth breathing Jabooney who thinks NASA and NOAA have no data ,...you are the pits of stupid to make such a claim..


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


So far you are the most stupid moron at USMB I have encountered  and that is surely saying something...*you actually put forth the Idiocy that NASA NOAA and the Climate scientist have no data *...the PITS OF STUPID


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Does you mother know you lie like that?
> ...


You are so moronic you have publicly stated that NOAA NASA and Climate agencies have no data to back AGW...you are the PITS OF STUPID


----------



## Crick (May 12, 2016)

Where are SSDD's post to which so many others refer?


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




Hey...and what do you know...still not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the A in AGW.....I love being right...and watching useful idiots squirm around, call names, and fail to produce the data they believe so fervently exists....do you have any idea how much fun this is for me?...rattling your cage...watching you become so frustrated that calling me names and claiming that they do have the data like a fourth grader is all that you are capable of....Santa Clause is real...my mom told me he was...and I saw him at the mall....and he was in a movie....tons of data proving that santa is real....except there is no santa....not the first bit of real, observed, measured, quantified, evidence to support is existence...

You keep right on though skid mark...it is very entertaining...I am going to be on the road today so won't have any time to read your posts till this evening, but I do look forward to you crying out the same old insults, and making the same impotent claims in your frustration...carry on Garth...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> [..it is very entertaining...I am going to be on the road today so won't have any time to read your posts till this evening, but I do look forward to you crying out the same old insults, and making the same impotent claims in your frustration...carry on Garth...


You are so stupid you publicly declared that NASA NOAA and the Climate agencies all made up AGW without having data...that is the Pits of Stupid and it is MINDLESS.,.you are a stupid Jabooney...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 12, 2016)

*Network Newscasts Ignore Global Warming’s Role in Canada’s Wildfires*
By Miles Grant



Network news coverage of the massive fires ripping through Canada’s tar sands hub, as fast and furious as trailers for a Hollywood disaster movie, has missed opportunities to provide real information about the heavily polluting tar sands industry and global warming’s role in adding fuel to the flames.


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > [..it is very entertaining...I am going to be on the road today so won't have any time to read your posts till this evening, but I do look forward to you crying out the same old insults, and making the same impotent claims in your frustration...carry on Garth...
> ...



The stupid one is you Tyrone....believing mindlessly in NASA and NOAA when they don't have the first bit of observed, measured, quantified data in support of the A in AGW...Earlier, you said that I was isolated..which of us is really isolated Tyrone...do you see anyone coming to help you out?....do you see anyone providing any observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW to help bail you out of this and put me in my place?...I don't...what I see is people making excuses...what I see is people making claims of data that they can't seem to find to bring here...what I see is not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified data which is what I predicted in the first place...what I see is my prediction being born out....what I see is an idiot trying to convince me that data exists that he can't bring here to show....what I see is an idiot with misplaced faith in government institutions....what I see is just pathetic Tyrone...it is sad for someone to believe in a government so blindly that even when they can't find data that if it existed would be posted everywhere they still believe...

Alright...I am on the road...I will catch your next impotent posts this evening....carry on Garth..


----------



## SSDD (May 12, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Network Newscasts Ignore Global Warming’s Role in Canada’s Wildfires*
> By Miles Grant
> 
> 
> ...



I know that you believe global warming is to blame Tyrone...and it is just sad....pitiful and sad.  Talk to you this evening.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> The stupid one is you Tyrone....believing mindlessly in NASA and NOAA when they don't have the first bit of observed, measured, quantified data in support of the A in AGW...




Its is simply Mindless Stupidity to continue to assert that NOAA NASA and world wide Climate agencies woke up one fine day and they decided without data or measurements  to  declare a belief in AGW...Anyone who holds such a view is an unhinged Yabooney


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > *Network Newscasts Ignore Global Warming’s Role in Canada’s Wildfires*
> ...


You are so moronic you actually insist that NASA NOAA and the all of the world's Climate experts made up AGW without data or measurements ...you know what that is called "The PITS OF STUPID'


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > *Network Newscasts Ignore Global Warming’s Role in Canada’s Wildfires*
> ...


All I am going to do with you is repeat your mindless assertion that NOAA NASA and all of the world's Climate experts made up AGW on a whim without any measurements...that is called Moronia LOL


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 12, 2016)

May 3 2016
*Exxon ‘Knew Earlier, They Knew With Certainty and They Knew Globally’*
By Janine Jackson



“They knew that they could evade accountability, or at least delay regulatory and public scrutiny, by suggesting that there was doubt about the science.”


Apr 29 2016
*Brendan DeMelle on Exxon’s Climate Cover-Up*
By CounterSpin



Exxon knew decades ago that the increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuels posed a global threat. And it acted on that information–with a conscious and vigorous effort to sow uncertainty about climate science and to forestall regulation on its industry.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 12, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The stupid one is you Tyrone....believing mindlessly in NASA and NOAA when they don't have the first bit of observed, measured, quantified data in support of the A in AGW...
> ...




You did.

God damn dude just admit it like your fellow AGW cult member Naomi Klein it is all about social economic change.



.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 12, 2016)

*Sea-level rise factors unravelled - BBC News*

Global sea-level rise since the 1970s has been predominantly driven by greenhouse gas emissions and not natural climate variability, a study suggests.

Over the last 100 years, sea levels have been rising much faster than over previous millennia.

Now, scientists have modeled the cumulative forces driving observed sea-level rise in the modern era.

Details of the work are published in Nature Climate Change.

"The influence of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and aerosols - the human component, due to the burning of fossil fuels principally - is small in the beginning of the 20th century, only about 15%," says Dr John Church, a sea-level rise expert at CSIRO, the Australian federal research agency.

"But after 1970 it's the dominant factor, contributing to about 70% of the rise from 1970 up to present day."

"Natural internal climate variability, while it affects sea-level on short periods, has very little impact on the trend during the 20th century.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 12, 2016)

*GIF that shows global warming is 'spiraling' out of control* Christian Science Monitor
*Global Warming Spiral Shows 165 Years Of Climate Change* Tech Times
Highly Cited:*One of the Most Convincing Climate Change Visualizations We've Ever Seen* Gizmodo


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*there being nothing to absorb and hold the energy still radiating from the earth.
*
It absorbs it. It holds it. It doesn't radiate it back toward the Earth. Because 2nd Law. LOL!

This is how we know SSDD is a moron.


----------



## jc456 (May 12, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


where do builders put radiant heaters? on the floor.  Why is that?


----------



## jc456 (May 12, 2016)

IanC said:


> WTF is hot amber? Isn't amber fossilized tree sap? Why is it hot?
> 
> jc - are you confusing two very different situations? One situation is two objects of differing temperatures coming to equilibrium with no outside power input. They will move in opposite directions until they are the same temp. The other situation is when one object is being warmed by an outside source and the surrounding environment will affect the the equilibrium temperature as the heat dissipates from the source. The objects will never be at the same temperature, instead there will be a gradient of cooling temps as you get further away from the heat source.


Sorry, i meant embers.  replace all statements of amber with 'ember'


----------



## Wuwei (May 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> I think he is unaware that water vapor is the only one of the so called greenhouse gasses that can absorb, and actually retain energy....


That's not true. All gasses, greenhouse or not, hold thermal energy. With water you are referring only to it's extra ability to change phases.



SSDD said:


> ..it has to do with water being the only substance that we know of that can change phases in the open atmosphere....it is warmer in humid areas than it is in the desert due to the fact that humidity (water vapor} has actually stored energy and since there is little humidity in the desert, it gets cold very quickly at night...there being nothing to absorb and hold the energy still radiating from the earth.


You have a contradiction here. You are referring to water as having latent energy which is only manifested during a phase change. (Vapor changing to snow or hail, water evaporating, snow melting, etc.) In a desert, water is not undergoing any phase change, so you can't use "phase change" in any statement about what's happening in a desert unless it rains. You will have to come up with a different reason for the climate in a desert.






.


----------



## jc456 (May 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so it's strange that you believe all of this back radiation stuff and yet you don't believe in AGW.  Seems a bit odd to me, it is the only way it would be possible. And why I don't believe in back radiation because the planet isn't warming.


----------



## jc456 (May 12, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I think he is unaware that water vapor is the only one of the so called greenhouse gasses that can absorb, and actually retain energy....
> ...


funny how the desert is the one area that challenges the AGW crowd.  Especially at night.  Due to the lack of water vapor. how can that be.  Seems you have as much of a contradiction.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 12, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
so it's strange that you believe all of this back radiation stuff*

Yes, I believe the Stefan-Boltzmann Law shows how quickly matter above 0K radiates energy.

*and yet you don't believe in AGW.
*
Matter radiating is not impacted by liberals desire to tax carbon.
*
And why I don't believe in back radiation because the planet isn't warming.*

Warming, staying the same, cooling....doesn't change the fact that CO2 (or water vapor) in the atmosphere can absorb energy radiated from the surface and then emit it back toward the surface.

You don't think CO2 only radiates toward space, or that it measures the temperature of the Earth's surface and decides not to emit in that direction, or that photons or waves are "smart", do you?


----------



## jc456 (May 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


So since CO2 is absorbed in the ocean does it emit in the water?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 12, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Since all matter above 0K absorbs and emits, constantly, of course.


----------



## IanC (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > WTF is hot amber? Isn't amber fossilized tree sap? Why is it hot?
> ...




ahhhhh. partially consumed fuel that is still hot enough to glow but is no longer producing an open flame? 

do you know why people push the embers of a dying campfire together to restart it? because the embers lose less heat next to another ember than they do to the cooler surrounding environment. the same amount of combustion is capable of producing a higher temperature which leads to open flames again. back radiation from ember to ember, less heat loss, higher temperature at the location of the power source (fuel combustion).

why do people wear clothes? the body warms the clothes to a temperature intermediate between the cooler outside environment and the warmer skin. instead of only the smaller amount of environmental back radiation they get the larger amount from their clothes, hence the body needs to burn less food to stay warm.

the Earth's system is similar. the sun heats the surface, which heats the nearby atmosphere, which returns back radiation. this would be true even without greenhouse gases. with GHGs it is like trading a teeshirt for a down jacket. far less radiation escapes directly to space, and the absorbed radiation warms the atmosphere, which then produces more backradiation.

why am I a skeptic who doesnt believe more CO2 will cause a runaway heating? more CO2 is like having more down in your jacket but water is like opening and closing the zipper according to how hot you feel. if it's too hot evaporation cools the surface, convection pumps it away, and the resulting clouds shade the incoming sunlight. the water cycle removes about 100/165 of the surface solar input, direct escape to space through IR bands not absorbed by the atmosphere removes another 40/165. the last 25/165 of surface solar input leaves as radiation pinballing through the GHGs. CO2 is claimed to be somewhere between 5-25% of the greenhouse effect. there have probably been 5-10 doublings of CO2 from the initial bolus.

25W x 25% x 1/5 adds up to a rounding error. easily lost in the water cycle system.


----------



## Crick (May 13, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



So CO2's GHG effect is lost as a rounding error in the water vapor. There's the hard scientist for you.


----------



## IanC (May 13, 2016)

could climate science be more fixated on CO2? I dont think so.


----------



## Crick (May 13, 2016)

Yeah, *H A R D* science.


----------



## IanC (May 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> Yeah, *H A R D* science.




climate science is NOT hard science. when was the last time they made an effort to verify their models? or even their statistics?

the IPCC admits that the models cannot do clouds/ water vapour very well, and then just ignores it. the biggest piece of the puzzle is not constrained so they concentrate on CO2 related studies and have the nerve to call their conclusions certain.


----------



## Wuwei (May 13, 2016)

As you say, Trenberth's diagram has subtractions of large numbers with systematic or statistical errors larger than the subtracted value itself. I have not looked at AR5 myself, but I have always found it difficult to believe that AGW is based on a number with a large standard deviation. Publishing that diagram should always have the caveat that the numbers are only typical.

It is known that the earth has a bipolar stability. A cold frozen earth has little water vapor, and reflects solar energy so that it stays cold. A hot earth has far more solar absorption and water vapor which allows it to remain hot. It's like trying to balance a light switch half way between off and on. A little nudge one way or another will have a huge effect. Throwing extra GHG's that do not have the same phase changing stabilization effect as water seems dangerous and unpredictable. I'm not so concerned with the numbers as I am about the unpredictability of adding non-water GHG's.

Another problem that I have not seen mentioned (probably because I never looked) is that in the arctic there is little local stabilizing water vapor. It is there that the more evenly spread CO2 and CH4 can have a larger effect that can cause faster melting.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 13, 2016)

IanC said:


> could climate science be more fixated on CO2? I dont think so.


Ian, Dr. Alley knows far more on this subject than you do. Here is his presentation to the AGU Conferance.

co2, the big control knob, richard alley, youtube - Yahoo Search Results Yahoo Search Results


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Ian, I appreciate all your effort, but it still doesn't explain why it's colder at night with no cloud cover.  If there is back radiation from any GH gas then there has to be more warmth, and if there is warmth from GHGs then the warmer deniers are right, the more CO2 the more heat.  Sorry, I don't go for it.  Again, none of it explains the nighttime temps.  Wuwe just stated that the arctic sees more CO2 hence will have more ice melt.  CO2 is used to put fires out.  And yet it can melt ice.  Wow.  I don't understand with all these glaring pronouncements that there isn't one experiment that validates any of them.  not one.  Now water vapor, there you go, humidity can be measured.  In fact, in the summertime we have a temperature humidity index that will show how much warmer humidity can make the air around us.  I'm still waiting on the magic CO2 index.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Ian, I appreciate all your effort, but it still doesn't explain why it's colder at night with no cloud cover.*

Colder with no cloud cover doesn't help show that GHGs absorb and re-emit energy?
What is your explanation for colder temps?
*
If there is back radiation from any GH gas then there has to be more warmth
*
There is more warmth.

*Sorry, I don't go for it.*

You don't go for all matter above 0K radiating?

*CO2 is used to put fires out.* 

When CO2 displaces oxygen, it puts out fires. That has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.

*I don't understand with all these glaring pronouncements that there isn't one experiment that validates any of them.  not one.* 

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


*Colder with no cloud cover doesn't help show that GHGs absorb and re-emit energy?* right*
What is your explanation for colder temps?*
no sun.
*There is more warmth*
funny
*You don't go for all matter above 0K radiating?*
not more warmth, no.
*When CO2 displaces oxygen, it puts out fires. That has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.*
It's still CO2.
*
Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law*
post one.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



What is your explanation for colder temps?
*
no sun.
*
There is also no sun in the areas with cloud cover at night.

*funny*

And true.

*not more warmth, no.
*
Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.
*
It's still CO2.
*
CO2 doesn't help combustion.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law
*
post one*

http://www.nikhef.nl/~h73/kn1c/praktikum/phywe/LEP/Experim/3_5_01.pdf


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*There is also no sun in the areas with cloud cover at night.*
yep and aren't considered in GHGs. in fact, they are still trying to figure out the affect of cloud cover.  We know by observation that clouds hold in warmth. Fact that is observed.
*Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.*
than what?
*experiment*
I'll be looking at the experiment later, have to work right now.  I will post once I've looked at it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*yep and aren't considered in GHGs.
*
Water vapor is a GHG.
*
in fact, they are still trying to figure out the affect of cloud cover
*
AGWers have crappy models. That doesn't stop water vapor from absorbing and emitting energy.
*
We know by observation that clouds hold in warmth. Fact that is observed.*

Yes, Stefan-Boltzmann as you've admitted.....and denied.

Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.
*
than what?
*
Than no cloud cover.


----------



## Wuwei (May 13, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Ian, Dr. Alley knows far more on this subject than you do. Here is his presentation to the AGU Conferance.
> 
> co2, the big control knob, richard alley, youtube - Yahoo Search Results Yahoo Search Results


I just finished listening to the entire one hour presentation by Richard Alley. It was fast moving. He is a very expressive speaker. He clarified many questions that are brought up in this forum, and of course he addressed them without the naivety you would see here. He was also objective enough to admit where there were inconsistencies in proxy data, and how they were addressed and cross-related. 

Also he talked about "old rocks". Thank you for the reference.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 13, 2016)

First of all............ these predictions are based upon *computer models* that historically are frequently inaccurate, plus, they are frequently prepared using data that has been rigged. ( see threads on NOAA and NASA data rigging in this forum  )

Secondly........weve been seeing threads like this from the AGW k00ks for years DESPITE the fact that there has been zero warming now for over 18 years!!!

They just throw this stuff out there hoping to dupe the suckers who don't check the facts......


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Water vapor is a GHG.*

Yes it is, but water vapor isn't a cloud and I referenced a cloud. A cloud is not GHG and what I stated.

*
AGWers have crappy models.*
yes they do and they don't include clouds.  And most of the planet is always under a cloud on a daily basis. It's why we have water.

*Than no cloud cover*
Funny, not added warmth to the surface merely what the surface temps are.  I laugh at this sht.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
Yes it is, but water vapor isn't a cloud and I referenced a cloud. A cloud is not GHG and what I stated.*

Water vapor, in a cloud or not, is a greenhouse gas.
*
yes they do and they don't include clouds
*
Cool. Has nothing to do with your confusion about matter emitting energy.
*
Funny, not added warmth to the surface merely what the surface temps are.*

Clouds and water vapor in the atmosphere both absorb energy emitted from the ground and emit a portion back to the Earth's surface. That's back radiation. It happens, it keeps the planet warmer than it would be without water vapor in the atmosphere.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Water vapor, in a cloud or not, is a greenhouse gas.*
Cloud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In meteorology, a *cloud* is an aerosol comprising a visible mass of minute liquid droplets or frozen crystals, both of which are made of water or various chemicals. The droplets or particles are suspended in the atmosphere above the surface of a planetary body.[1] On Earth clouds are formed by the saturation of air in the homosphere (which includes the troposphere, stratosphere, and mesosphere) when air cools or gains water vapor. The science of clouds is *nephology* which is undertaken in the cloud physics branch of meteorology."
*
Cool. Has nothing to do with your confusion about matter emitting energy.*
and clouds are not figured into any model, and back radiation does not exist.

CO2

"The so called "Greenhouse effect" is just an hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation

The hypothesis of the "greenhouse effect" despite being more than 150 years old has never and will never achieve the status of a testable theory."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*and back radiation does not exist.
*
Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere absorb energy emitted from the ground and don't emit back toward the ground? Why not?
*
"The so called "Greenhouse effect" is just an hypothesis.*

It works better as an explanation than your claim that energy from GHGs doesn't get emitted toward the ground.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere absorb energy emitted from the ground and don't emit back toward the ground? Why not?*

Because the surface would get warmer if it did.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Because the surface would get warmer if it did.
*
Get warmer than what?


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Get warmer than what?*
than what we've already recorded.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The temperatures we record are already impacted by back radiation.

So why do you feel GHGs, after they absorb energy, do not radiate toward the ground?
Do you feel there is a flaw in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Cold cannot heat up a warm body.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Cold cannot heat up a warm body.*

GHGs don't emit cold, they emit energy.
Why do you feel that energy from GHGs won't travel toward the warmer ground?


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*GHGs don't emit cold, they emit energy.*

Are you saying that your supposed emitted IR doesn't mean heat?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
Are you saying that your supposed emitted IR doesn't mean heat?
*
Are you saying matter above 0K won't emit radiation in the direction of something warmer?
Because the Stefan-Boltzmann Law doesn't say that.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so where is the hot spot in the atmosphere?


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: AGW Myth of Back Radiation

excerpt:

*"AGW Myth of Back Radiation *

AGW alarmism is  based on an idea of "back radiation" or "re-radiation" from an atmosphere with greenhouse gases, but the physics of this phenomenon remains unclear. 

To test if  "back radiation" is a real phenomenon, we suggest the following experiment: On a night with moon-light so feeble that you can cannot read a newspaper, place yourself in front of a mirror letting the moonlight reflect from the newspaper to the mirror and back again, and check if you can now read. You will probably find that the paper is still unreadable, as if "back radiation" does not give more light.

To give this experiment theoretical support we consider the mathematics of wave propagation from a source at x=0 (Earth surface)  to a receiver at x=1 (atmospheric layer) described by the wave equation (as a model of Maxwell's equations describing light as electromagnetic waves):"

Read the comments under the main topic.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

or
The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the 'Greenhouse Effect'".

Abstract:
"This article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The "Greenhouse Effect" is defined by Arrhenius' (1896) modification of Pouillet's backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius' incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius' Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation."


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 So i read the experiment and not actually sure how that proves back radiation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



A hot spot is not needed for matter to radiate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: AGW Myth of Back Radiation
> 
> excerpt:
> 
> ...



*On a night with moon-light so feeble that you can cannot read a newspaper, place yourself in front of a mirror letting the moonlight reflect from the newspaper to the mirror and back again, and check if you can now read. You will probably find that the paper is still unreadable, as if "back radiation" does not give more light.
*
Possible the dumbest post I've ever seen. Was it written by SSDD?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> or
> The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the 'Greenhouse Effect'".
> 
> Abstract:
> "This article explores the "Greenhouse Effect" in contemporary literature and in the frame of physics, finding a conspicuous lack of clear thermodynamic definition. The "Greenhouse Effect" is defined by Arrhenius' (1896) modification of Pouillet's backradiation idea so that instead of being an explanation of how a thermal gradient is maintained at thermal equilibrium, Arrhenius' incarnation of the backradiation hypothesis offered an extra source of power in addition to the thermally conducted heat which produces the thermal gradient in the material. The general idea as expressed in contemporary literature, though seemingly chaotic in its diversity of emphasis, shows little change since its revision by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, and subsequent refutation by Robert Wood in 1909. The "Greenhouse Effect" is presented as a radiation trap whereby changes in atmospheric composition resulting in increased absorption lead to increased surface temperatures. However, since the composition of a body, isolated from thermal contact by a vacuum, cannot affect mean body temperature, the "Greenhouse Effect" has, in fact, no material foundation. Compositional variation can change the distribution of heat within a body in accordance with Fourier's Law, but it cannot change the overall temperature of the body. Arrhenius' Backradiation mechanism did, in fact, duplicate the radiative heat transfer component by adding this component to the conductive heat flow between the earth's surface and the atmosphere, when thermal conduction includes both contact and radiative modes of heat transfer between bodies in thermal contact. Moreover, the temperature of the earth's surface and the temperature in a greenhouse are adequately explained by elementary physics. Consequently, the dubious explanation presented by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis is an unnecessary complication. Furthermore, this hypothesis has neither direct experimental confirmation nor direct empirical evidence of a material nature. Thus the notion of "Anthropogenic Global Warming", which rests on the "Greenhouse Effect", also has no real foundation."



Have you ever parked your car in the Sun with the windows rolled up?
Summer, winter, doesn't matter.
Come back to your car later and notice it's hotter inside the car than outside.

Why do you suppose that is the case?


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


well if there is energy there must be heat.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > or
> ...


because everything is radiating heat in the car, the dash, the seats the glass not sure your point. its all heat.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Claes Johnson on Mathematics and Science: AGW Myth of Back Radiation
> ...


it was about the comments under the article, I posted that.

*Read the comments under the main topic*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It shows that energy emitted is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature.

Do you disagree? Why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



And? A hot spot still is not needed for matter to radiate.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



_Your thought experiment is meaningless; it only proves that whatever reflected light there is still is insufficient for reading, not that there is no reflected light. And it is obvious that there is indeed reflected light, which rather destroys the argument anyway._

_Very simple logic may help you here. Here's the truth:_

_1. The Earth, at a temperature of about 300K, radiates infrared photons. They go upwards.
2. Some molecules in the atmosphere absorb infrared photons.
3. Conservations of energy requires that the energy absorbed be re-emitted.
4. There is no physical mechanism to restrict which direction it is re-emitted in, and therefore it is re-emitted isotropically.
5. Therefore, some proportion of that re-emitted energy is re-emitted back towards the Earth._

_It's really not hard. It amazes me that someone would seek to deny this._

Roger mades Claes sound like SSDD.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


a hot spot would be needed if it were happening indeed.  again energy creates heat.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
because everything is radiating heat in the car, the dash, the seats the glass not sure your point.
*
Yes. And the car gets hotter. Why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



A hot spot is not needed for the 70 degree walls in my house to radiate back to my 98 degree skin.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


your experiment is no different than the dude and the mirror.

And you can't prove back radiation.  you just can't, you wouldn't be scrambling in an attempt to prove it.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


how do painted walls absorb? heat mingles around due to air movement in the house.  your walls no more absorb like your windows. The heat should never come on again once equilibrium is present then.  Right? LOL


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
And you can't prove back radiation.*

To disprove it you'd have to show why energy radiates up, is absorbed by GHGs and refuses to radiate down.
*
you wouldn't be scrambling in an attempt to prove it.
*
The SB Law already proves it.
So why do you disagree with it?


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Yes. And the car gets hotter. Why?*

because everything is radiating heat in the car, the dash, the seats the glass not sure your point. its all heat. it's all like the surface of the planet, it absorbs and radiates LWIR.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*how do painted walls absorb?
*
Matter absorbs energy. It's basic physics.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*because everything is radiating heat in the car, the dash, the seats the glass not sure your point.*

These items are not burning, how do they radiate heat?


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*The SB Law already proves it.*

it does, then prove how it does. your experiment didn't.

*To disprove it you'd have to show why energy radiates up, is absorbed by GHGs and refuses to radiate down.*
 I didn't say it didn't, I said it doesn't make it to the surface,and i posted a link as to why. it eventually all goes to space.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


no that's not correct, some objects don't have the ability to absorb.  try again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*your experiment is no different than the dude and the mirror.
*
Except the dude experiment didn't measure the reflected light.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


same way asphalt does or metal or any other object that absorbs sunlight and remits it.  Like my pan on the stove after I turn off the burner.  wow you're really scrambling dude.

Edit: sand is a really good absorbing base as well.  you need shoes in the summer to walk long on it.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


sure it did, it showed none was there.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
it does, then prove how it does. your experiment didn't*

They graphed the data. That's not proof enough?

*I said it doesn't make it to the surface*

Why not? Magic force field stop it?

You know a photon radiating up won't "crash into" and stop a photon radiating down, right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



What device did they use to measure the lack of reflected photons?
Why doesn't he use a mirror in sunlight to prove light doesn't reflect?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*some objects don't have the ability to absorb
*
Which ones? Why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*same way asphalt does or metal or any other object that absorbs sunlight and remits it.
*
The interior of the car absorbs energy from the sun and emits energy.
So why doesn't the car stay the same temperature? Why does it heat up?


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*They graphed the data. That's not proof enough?*
no, it didn't confirm anything about back radiation.

*You know a photon radiating up won't "crash into" and stop a photon radiating down, right?*

it gets absorbed by other CO2 going up since that is the direction it must go as the temperature decreases in the atmosphere.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


it is the same temperature, it will also gain water vapor and the windows may fog. Why does a pan on the stove get so hot?  it gets to the temperature of the heat source. Why does our skin burn if we stay out too long?

Oh and black seats will be much fking hotter than light colored seats. why is that?


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


their chemical make up.  Why is it nitrogen or Oxygen doesn't absorb?  Doh, maybe they do.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


_
An atom or molecule in the atmosphere which has absorbed energy will re-emit it isotropically. If you want to deny that, you would need to believe that these particles know which direction the earth is in, and know that they have to re-radiate the energy in directions which do not reach the Earth. How do they do that?
_
This Roger guy has his boot all the way up Claes' dumb ass.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


_Roger, have you heard about momentum conservation? That is why photons are more likely to pass through the medium, an in case it is absorbed it results in an expansion of the gas which leads to cooling. Amazing that this is not understood. That is why there are no temperature gradients formed in a glass of water on the table_


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
no, it didn't confirm anything about back radiation.
*
It confirmed the SB Law. If you don't know how that confirms back radiation..........

*it gets absorbed by other CO2 going up*

A photon traveling Earthward is always absorbed by CO2? Why? Link?

*since that is the direction it must go as the temperature decreases in the atmosphere.*

A photon has to travel up? Why? How does it know which way is up?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*it is the same temperature,
*
What is the same temperature as what?

*it will also gain water vapor and the windows may fog.*

It's dry. The windows are rolled up.
*
Why does a pan on the stove get so hot?  it gets to the temperature of the heat source.
*
And the hot pan radiates in all directions. Even toward the hotter flame.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*
A photon has to travel up? Why? How does it know which way is up?*

That was for CO2 traveling up due to the change in temperature going up.
*
It confirmed the SB Law. If you don't know how that confirms back radiation........*

All it proved was a light radiating, nothing else and the change as source power was increased.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*their chemical make up.
*
Which chemicals do you feel don't absorb energy?
*
Why is it nitrogen or Oxygen doesn't absorb?*

Unless they are at 0K, they absorbed energy at some point.

*Doh, maybe they do.*

Of course they do. And when they emit, sometimes they emit toward the warmer surface.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*And the hot pan radiates in all directions. Even toward the hotter flame*

yeah i know I posted about the embers remember?  wow, you like to go in circles a lot.  If you think you have enough evidence to change my mind and what i've read, you're wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Sounds like another SSDD comment.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Why is it nitrogen or Oxygen doesn't absorb?*

*Unless they are at 0K, they absorbed energy at some point.*


Well it's what is in most of what I read.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


*
That was for CO2 traveling up due to the change in temperature going up.
*
It doesn't matter if the CO2 is moving up, down, or sideways, when it emits a photon, the photon can move in any direction, even toward the warmer ground.

*All it proved was a light radiating, nothing else and the change as source power was increased*

Yes, it showed that the hotter an object is, the more energy it radiates. That's the SB Law, the one you agree with and then disagree with.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*yeah i know I posted about the embers remember?*

Yes.
*
wow, you like to go in circles a lot. *

When you agree and disagree with the SB Law, I have to go in circles to follow you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




*Well it's what is in most of what I read.*

You think you read that oxygen and nitrogen don't absorb (and emit) energy?
I think I may have discovered your problem.


----------



## Markle (May 13, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > could climate science be more fixated on CO2? I dont think so.
> ...



Do you believe that this speaker might have been invited had he been known for OPPOSING the Global Warming cabal?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 13, 2016)

Markle said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Stupid fucking ass. Dr. Richard Alley is an internationally known glaciologist. He was invited for his expertise in glaciers and paleoclimatology. He presented evidence in his presentation which you never bothered to listen to. You are just another willfully ignorant ignoramous, some one totally irrelevant to the conversation.


----------



## Markle (May 13, 2016)

skookerasbil said:


> First of all............ these predictions are based upon *computer models* that historically are frequently inaccurate, plus, they are frequently prepared using data that has been rigged. ( see threads on NOAA and NASA data rigging in this forum  )
> 
> Secondly........weve been seeing threads like this from the AGW k00ks for years DESPITE the fact that there has been zero warming now for over 18 years!!!
> 
> They just throw this stuff out there hoping to dupe the suckers who don't check the facts......





Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You're joking...right?

Have you never gotten into a hot car?  You grab the steering wheel and it is (STUNNING I KNOW!) HOT.  Really HOT.  The AIR is not heated by the sun.  The air is heated by the objects, including the earth itself, being heated by the radiation of the sun.

Your statement:  "These items are not burning, how do they radiate heat?"

Honestly, are you being facetious?  You aren't serious...are you?


----------



## Markle (May 13, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...








Your desperation is duly noted.


----------



## Markle (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



What objects can not absorb the radiation from the sun?


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Sorry, but that is incorrect.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Markle said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Look it up on the Internet


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



What is incorrect? Be specific.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I used the ember for a from reason.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



What reason?


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I'm unclear what you don't understand? If something is hot and it gets hotter it will be hotter. Ever hear of steel and a blacksmith. They get steel extremely hot to what? Dude you're lost.

By the way, it still doesn't explain back radiation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*If something is hot and it gets hotter it will be hotter.*

Derp.


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Yes indeed, Derp. WOW son

Still your point is lost. No back radiation


----------



## Crick (May 14, 2016)

Markle said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Perfect reflectors.


----------



## Wuwei (May 14, 2016)

For the last 80 posts Popeye has been toying with you. He really isn't interested in the science. He just wants to mess with your minds.


----------



## Crick (May 14, 2016)

Popeye?  Where are his posts?  I see nothing here but several pages of Todd.


----------



## Wuwei (May 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> Popeye? Where are his posts? I see nothing here but several pages of Todd.


LOL.  I read it for entertainment only, but it's getting stale. Maybe I should use ignore too.
Here are my favorite words of wisdom from Popeye:
*If something is hot and it gets hotter it will be hotter.*


----------



## IanC (May 14, 2016)

I have had several conversations with Doug Cotton in the past over thermodynamic issues. He is very similar to SSDD in his beliefs and debating style.

Cotton also denies the Greenhouse Effect but has more sophisticated math to back up his position. There is a glaring flaw in both Cotton's and SSDD's reasoning. 

They ignore past energy flows and only look at equilibrium conditions. 

I have been calling it a 'heat sink' because I don't know the proper terminology. It's not the first time I have simply given a name to an obvious physical principle but it does cause difficulties in getting my point across.

Eg. An oven only works properly after it has been preheated. The initial energy is used to warm up all the components, very little is lost to the environment. At equilibrium (the cooking temp) as much energy being used to maintain the temp is being lost to the environment. After the power is turned off the oven continues to lose energy until it is once again at room temperature.

On Earth massive amounts of energy have been stored in many components. The atmosphere and it's circulation, the oceans and their currents, etc. This stored energy is the confounding factor in why people don't understand the Greenhouse Effect. This is why the surface radiates 400w while only receiving 165w of solar input. 

The insulating properties of the atmosphere etc can change the equilibrium temperature at any point of the system from top of the atmosphere solar input, to TOA IR output, which is always very close to equal, especially over long periods of time.

Unlike an oven, the Earth is always 'on'. That does not mean we can ignore the stored energy in its systems. Without solar input the atmosphere would just be a frozen crust on the surface. Imagine how much energy is stored in the kenetic and potential energies just in the atmosphere. The sunlit side of the atmosphere 'puffs up' several kilometers every day, only to relax again during night.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 14, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> For the last 80 posts Popeye has been toying with you. He really isn't interested in the science. He just wants to mess with your minds.



I don't know why I bother digging, I guess I'm just curious to see how deep the stupid goes.

I'm thinking, all the way down.........


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2016)

Well now, Todd, you are completely correct. jc, Silly Billy, Frankie Boi, and the rest simply deny science. And when you point out that the science you are quoting comes directly from all the physics and chemistry texts of the last 50 years, at least, they will calmly state those texts are written by a bunch of lying liberals. You cannot change such minds, you can only put out the correct information, and where to find it, for those that might not realize the stupidity of what they are claiming.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 14, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Well now, Todd, you are completely correct. jc, Silly Billy, Frankie Boi, and the rest simply deny science. And when you point out that the science you are quoting comes directly from all the physics and chemistry texts of the last 50 years, at least, they will calmly state those texts are written by a bunch of lying liberals. You cannot change such minds, you can only put out the correct information, and where to find it, for those that might not realize the stupidity of what they are claiming.



JC and SSDD are confused about the science.
In their defense, they aren't pushing for trillions in wasteful spending based on weak evidence/bad math.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2016)

Trillions in spending? Where? Buying the generation that has the least effect on the environment for a better price than the generation that has the most effect on the environment is spending trillions on wasteful spending?

Back up your figures, Todd. What trillions where? 

From 2012;

*Over 770,000 homes weatherized. A doubling of energy from wind and solar. Cleaning 688 square miles of land formerly used for Cold War-era nuclear testing.*
These are just some of the 'green' benefits from money spent under 2009's $787 billion stimulus package. Whether it was worth it is an open question, and one sure to come up with greater frequency as the presidential campaign enters its final weeks.


Tallying just how much cash went to green projects isn't easy. The government website thattracks stimulus spending lists 27,226 individual awards under the "Energy/ Environment" section, totaling just shy of $34 billion.

But that doesn't include things like high speed rail and smart meters, which lie among the 43,000-plus "infrastructure" awards.

In a report earlier this year, the Brookings Institution put green stimulus spending at $51 billion. From 2009 to 2014, Brookings estimates the federal government will spend over $150 billion from both stimulus and non-stimulus funds on green initiatives.

Related: 9 divisive energy issues for the election

What we got for $50 billion in 'green' stimulus

*I am not seeing trillions here.*


----------



## Wuwei (May 14, 2016)

IanC said:


> I have had several conversations with Doug Cotton in the past over thermodynamic issues. He is very similar to SSDD in his beliefs and debating style.
> 
> Cotton also denies the Greenhouse Effect but has more sophisticated math to back up his position. There is a glaring flaw in both Cotton's and SSDD's reasoning.
> 
> ...


Heat sink is probably a good way of stating it, although a heat sink is more for dissipation of heat rather than storage. "Thermal inertia" is what is often used. One great example of thermal inertia is in the seasons. The temperature cycle has a significant phase lag from the equinox or solstice.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2016)

*What Types of Energy-Related Tax Preferences Does the Government Provide, and How Has the Value and Composition of that Financial Support Changed Over Time?*
Tax preferences for energy production were first established in 1916, and until 2005, they were primarily intended to stimulate domestic production of oil and natural gas. With the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, energy-related tax preferences grew substantially, and an increasing share of them were aimed at encouraging energy efficiency and energy produced from renewable sources, such as wind and the sun. Although tax preferences for fossil fuels continued to make up the bulk of all energy-related tax incentives through 2007, by the end of 2008, fossil fuels accounted for only a third of the total cost of energy-related tax incentives (see the figure below).






The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 expanded and extended provisions related to energy efficiency and renewable energy. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or ARRA, further expanded tax preferences for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and alternative vehicles. As a result, in 2011, provisions aimed at energy efficiency and renewable energy accounted for 78 percent—or about $16 billion—of the estimated budgetary cost of federal energy-related tax preferences.

How Much Does the Federal Government Support the Development and Production of Fuels and Energy Technologies?

*Trillion?*


----------



## Wuwei (May 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > For the last 80 posts Popeye has been toying with you. He really isn't interested in the science. He just wants to mess with your minds.
> ...


Yeah, I know what you mean. It's sort of like being riveted to watching a cat vomit.  
"All the way down" seems to be an abyss.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 14, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Trillions in spending? Where? Buying the generation that has the least effect on the environment for a better price than the generation that has the most effect on the environment is spending trillions on wasteful spending?
> 
> Back up your figures, Todd. What trillions where?
> 
> ...



$76 Trillion to Engineer a Green Economy?


----------



## IanC (May 14, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I have had several conversations with Doug Cotton in the past over thermodynamic issues. He is very similar to SSDD in his beliefs and debating style.
> ...




Thanks. But I don't think thermal inertia quite covers it. It is the mechanism by which a higher level of effectiveness can be attained by a smaller input. I'm decades out of my last physics class but the general principles remain, and usually steer me in the right direction. I am also quick to relinquish a position if I find a better path or someone points it out.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Trillions in spending? Where? Buying the generation that has the least effect on the environment for a better price than the generation that has the most effect on the environment is spending trillions on wasteful spending?
> ...


1.9 trillion a year, over the whole world. That is replacing worn out energy infrastructure in the industrial nations and building a brand new infrastructure in what are now third world nations. I would say that we will spend that much whether it is renewables, or fossil fuel generation. It is just that now the fossil fuel generation is more expensive, and has far more externalities than do the renewables.

Essentially that headline is a lie. It makes it seem that is the cost above and beyond what we would spend in any case, which is simply not true. 

And then there are the effects of continuing to pump GHGs into the atmosphere. That is going to cost many, many trillions of dollars as the climate change starts impacting the present infrastructure around the world.

The Economics of Climate Change


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2016)

IanC said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Thermal inertia is a very big part of what we are playing with. That is why we are not seeing immediate effects of the present 400+ ppm of CO2, and why we will see those effects for decades to come, ever were we able to return to 1850 levels of GHG generation.


----------



## Wuwei (May 14, 2016)

IanC said:


> Thanks. But I don't think thermal inertia quite covers it. It is the mechanism by which a higher level of effectiveness can be attained by a smaller input. I'm decades out of my last physics class but the general principles remain, and usually steer me in the right direction. I am also quick to relinquish a position if I find a better path or someone points it out.


Cotton does not mention the Stefan-Boltzmann equation at all in a long article of his. I don't see how anyone could ignore that in a discussion about thermal radiation.

I think his fatal flaw is
_"But heat cannot be transferred back to Earth by radiation as that would be like water flowing up a hill.  So there is no warming effect in the oceans or land surfaces when some of this "back radiation" travels back down in the direction of Earth."_​
Cotton seems to accept the concept, but also denies back radiation. Then he confuses radiation with heat not realizing that radiation itself has nothing to do with heat. It can be emitted from a source and absorbed by another source. But the two sources must obey the 2nd law, not the radiation, which is just the energy transfer mechanism.

I still don't know what you are trying to get at with "_a higher level of effectiveness can be attained by a smaller input_", unless it's climate amplificaton.


----------



## IanC (May 14, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks. But I don't think thermal inertia quite covers it. It is the mechanism by which a higher level of effectiveness can be attained by a smaller input. I'm decades out of my last physics class but the general principles remain, and usually steer me in the right direction. I am also quick to relinquish a position if I find a better path or someone points it out.
> ...




Don't have the time or inclination to explain it better right now, sorry.

Cotton also ignores the time element in radiation which leads to the strawman of perpetual motion machine. 1+1/2+1/4...=2 etc. Claes Johnson has a fairly sophisticated reinvention for radiation. Instead of back radiation reaching the surface, there is harmonic reflection. He gets the same answer as classic physics but it seems unduly complicated just to 'make a point'. He also disagrees with the concept of photons but doesn't offer up any alternatives. SSDD says he doesn't listen to either of them but the evidence is pretty clear that he is getting his talking points from them, perhaps second or third hand.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 14, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



*1.9 trillion a year, over the whole world.
*
2.5% of world GDP, for unreliable energy. No thanks.

*It is just that now the fossil fuel generation is more expensive,
*
Except, it isn't.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2016)

Really? You build a natural gas plant, you have to put pipes in the ground to get the natural gas to the plant. A coal plant, you have to build a railroad to deliver the coal. Solar or wind, and you just put up the towers or panels. In all cases, you have to build the grid, so that is even from the gitgo.

The maintenance of a coal fired plant by far exceeds that of wind turbines and solar panels. Even a natural gas plant has significant maintenance compared to the renewables. Even the present operating solar plants exceed the peaker gas plants in economy;
Solar Electricity Cost vs. Regular Electricity Cost
*PV Solar Parity Has Begun*
*Levelized Cost Of Energy (LCOE)*

The following table shows the Levelized Cost Of Energy (LCOE) for various sources of electricity. The LCOE is a "fair" method of comparing the cost of different complex energy technologies. It is the total life cycle cost of electricity for a given technology divided by the total life cycle electricity produced, expressed as cents per kilo-watt hour. (LCOE calculations are explained in more detail in the Utility Section below.) The table, derived from LCOE costs developed by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) in June, 2015, "estimates" the raw LCOE over a 30 year period for different energy sources that are brought online in the year 2020. No subsidies are included in the calculations.


* Energy Plant Type* *Lifetime Cost  ¢ per Kwh*
Offshore Wind 20.0
Peaker Natural Gas 18.0
Coal with CCS 14.4
PV Solar 12.5
Gas Combined Cycle with CCS 10.0
Biomass 10.0
Advanced Nuclear 9.5
Conventional Coal 9.5
Hydro-electric 8.4
Natural Gas Combined Cycle 7.5
Land Based Wind 7.4
Geothermal 4.8
Note: CCS stands for Carbon Control and Storage (Sequestration) in a remote underground location. The LCOE for Peaker Natural Gas (18.0¢) is per the California Energy Commission.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2016)

_Cheapest Solar Ever: Austin Energy Gets 1.2 Gigawatts of Solar Bids for Less Than 4 Cents

Correction: Khalil Shalabi said was that 1,295 megawatts were priced below the Recurrent solar deal from last year, which was under 5 cents per kilowatt-hour not under 4 cents per kilowatt-hour._

A lot more cheap solar is coming for Austin, Texas.

The city's utility, Austin Energy, just released new data on developer bids for PV projects as part of a 600-megawatt procurement. The numbers show how far solar prices have come down over the last year -- and will continue to drop.

According to Khalil Shalabi, Austin Energy's vice president of resource planning, the utility received offers for 7,976 megawatts of projects after issuing a request for bids in April. Out of those bids, 1,295 megawatts of projects were priced below 4 cents per kilowatt-hour.

"The technology is getting better and the prices are decreasing with time," said Shalabi during a presentation in front of the Austin city council last week.

*Below a nickel a kw/hr is less than anything other than wind.*


----------



## elektra (May 15, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Really? You build a natural gas plant, you have to put pipes in the ground to get the natural gas to the plant. A coal plant, you have to build a railroad to deliver the coal. Solar or wind, and you just put up the towers or panels. In all cases, you have to build the grid, so that is even from the gitgo.
> .


Yea, Wind Turbines are magic, they just go up, with zero infrastructure or destruction to the environment, like magic fairy dust. Old Crock, you are a filthy liar (if I can steal words from the crock). Wind turbines last 7 years, Coal Power Plants last 50 to 100 years. But Old Crock is not smart enough to realize you need major infrastructure built to the top of these pristine ridgelines to handle a semi truck and parts of a wind turbine that weigh 30 tons. Imagine the road that must be built, to include the truck, is it over 40 tons the road must support, that is a lot of gravel, road base, concrete? As we can see, Old Crock is over his head, once again, telling a lie, unwittingly, ignorantly, as a fool.


----------



## elektra (May 15, 2016)




----------



## Crick (May 15, 2016)

God are you stupid.  And obsessed (or devoid of but a single idea (and that a bad one))


----------



## Old Rocks (May 15, 2016)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Really? You build a natural gas plant, you have to put pipes in the ground to get the natural gas to the plant. A coal plant, you have to build a railroad to deliver the coal. Solar or wind, and you just put up the towers or panels. In all cases, you have to build the grid, so that is even from the gitgo.
> ...








What Is Mountaintop Removal Mining?





A study in 2009 showed that nearly 1.2 million acres to date had been surface mined for coal, and more than 500 mountains destroyed by mountaintop removal coal mining. In some counties, such as Wise County, Va., surface mining has impacted nearly 40 percent of the land area.



*Mountaintop removal mining impact study results by state:
Kentucky* 574,000 acres 293 mountains
*Tennessee* 78,000 acres 6 mountains
*Virginia* 156,000 acres 67 mountains
*West Virginia* 352,000 acres 135 mountains
TOTAL 1,160,000 acres 501 mountains

*As opposed to this? *


----------



## Wuwei (May 15, 2016)

It is hard to compare two different energy producing technologies. However one method that seems best is the idea of "energy return on energy investment" (EROEI). In other words to get a unit of energy out with a certain technology, how many units of input energy is required. EROEI is a ratio where higher is better.

In the early 1900's oil had well over a 90% return. The energy required involved simply to build a structure to sink a pipe into the ground. Nowadays you need to separate oil from shale, or build a huge rig in the ocean, or a multitude of smaller rigs pressurizing and pumping it up, or the high energy use of fracking.

This chart shows the EROEI of all the popular technologies.





Notice the dirty coal industry is still very cheap, but this chart doesn't account for environmental damage which can be expensive in the case of coal. Notice that wind is better than today's oil or nuclear or photovoltaic. The worst widely used technology is corn ethanol. That value is around 1.6 EROEI. If the EROEI is 1.0 you get as much energy out as you put in. It's not worth it unless you want to subsidize farmers.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 15, 2016)

IanC said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > *Icegate: Now NSIDC Caught Tampering With Climate Records*
> ...



It's called science. To test if a model works, you have to have a hypothesis, use the data available, see if it works. If it doesn't then you try and tweak it and see if that works.

The biggest problem is when people get hold of PREDICTIONS and determine that this is somehow sacred and that if it's wrong then the people who made the predictions are somehow liars and idiots, when if fact it's the people who are reading the predictions as FACT that have the problem.


----------



## IanC (May 15, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...




WELL DONE!! It's the first time that I can remember you posting up anything interesting.

What you said obviously has a lot of truth to it. Is it in context though?

Most people have neither the time, inclination or ability to understand climate science and decipher the predictions broadcast by the media. They simply add up all that they hear and make a rough average and consider that to be close to the truth. So the type and quantity of publicized predictions is important.

Next, what kind of predictions get publicized? Forecasts of Doom sells, uncertainty and continuation of the status quo do not. Prediction of 30 meters of sea level rise from a glacier melting is newsworthy and interesting. Prediction of sea level rise for the next hundred years being very similar to the last hundred years, is not. One scenario is impossible and the other is likely.

Next, who makes the predictions? Scientists for the most part. Why would they make or emphasise alarming forecasts? A few things to consider. CYA (cover your ass). There are no penalties for hyping bad but unlikely outcomes. But no one wants to get blamed if something does go seriously wrong and they said it wasn't likely. Status. Scientists who are recognized and quoted for predictions of Doom also get the high road to more funding and are called on by the media for their opinions. A positive feedback, to use the vernacular.

Should we blame the media for broadcasting unlikely scenarios, the scientists who allow the unlikely scenarios to be clipped out of their work without putting it in context, or the layman who believes what he is told because he is too ignorant to know better?


----------



## elektra (May 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> God are you stupid.  And obsessed (or devoid of but a single idea (and that a bad one))


No, I have many ideas, the last one was fact, Wind Turbines destroy mountain tops, stupidity is your reply, denying that cutting miles of roads and building 1000 ton bases for Wind Turbines destroyed the mountain ridge-line which is habitat for wildlife.


----------



## elektra (May 15, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> What Is Mountaintop Removal Mining?
> *As opposed to this? *


It is so sad, that to build Wind Turbines it requires Coal, Coke to produce the billions of tons of steel. Now that we are not using Coal for electricity, all the Coal/Coke is being used to manufacture steel for Wind Mills. We also use Coal for the Carbon, to build Carbon Fiber Wind Turbine Blades. $50 Trillion Dollars will be partially used to mine Coal to supply Wind Turbine manufacture forever.


----------



## Wuwei (May 15, 2016)

elektra said:


> It is so sad, that to build Wind Turbines it requires Coal, Coke to produce the billions of tons of steel. Now that we are not using Coal for electricity, all the Coal/Coke is being used to manufacture steel for Wind Mills. We also use Coal for the Carbon, to build Carbon Fiber Wind Turbine Blades. $50 Trillion Dollars will be partially used to mine Coal to supply Wind Turbine manufacture forever.


You are just guessing at the costs. Look at post 812 above. The cost in building wind turbines is more favorable than many other forms of energy. That cost, which is given in terms of energy units includes the energy cost of steel and other materials.


----------



## elektra (May 15, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > It is so sad, that to build Wind Turbines it requires Coal, Coke to produce the billions of tons of steel. Now that we are not using Coal for electricity, all the Coal/Coke is being used to manufacture steel for Wind Mills. We also use Coal for the Carbon, to build Carbon Fiber Wind Turbine Blades. $50 Trillion Dollars will be partially used to mine Coal to supply Wind Turbine manufacture forever.
> ...


People do not buy stuff with Energy Units? So your un-linked cartoon picture means nothing.

And your little cartoon contradicts what your Wind and Solar experts are spending. They put it in arcane terms not related to the real World to fool, idiots.

IEA calls for $36 trillion more in clean energy investments



> *IEA calls for $36 trillion more in clean energy investments*


----------



## Old Rocks (May 15, 2016)

And as the fossil fuel plants become worn out and uneconomical we will spend at least that, and be better off for it.


----------



## elektra (May 15, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> And as the fossil fuel plants become worn out and uneconomical we will spend at least that, and be better off for it.



Fossil Fuel will always be economical, compared to Wind and Solar, which are only manufactured by increasing the use of Fossil Fuels and Coal.


----------



## whitehall (May 15, 2016)

The science of meteorology with all the satellite technology and the international space station and the gigantic computers and even something called "the European model" can't predict tornadoes or the accurate path of hurricanes or even the weather beyond next week. Who would have predicted that the U.S. East Coast would be 20 degrees below normal temperature in the middle of May 2016? Here's a good way to promote the theory of man made global warming. Put the heat sensors in places that get extremely hot like freaking black asphalt in the summer and fudge the data a little bit more to keep coming up with a couple of degrees increase while the world is actually getting colder. Meanwhile when our senses tell us that it seems to be getting colder every year the pseudo-scientists who make a living from anti-American rhetoric can continue to call us "deniers".


----------



## Wuwei (May 15, 2016)

elektra said:


> People do not buy stuff with Energy Units? So your un-linked cartoon picture means nothing.
> 
> And your little cartoon contradicts what your Wind and Solar experts are spending. They put it in arcane terms not related to the real World to fool, idiots.
> 
> IEA calls for $36 trillion more in clean energy investments


The link ... Energy returned on energy invested - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Arcane? I guess you don't understand the chart. It is quite a simple concept. Comparing costs of energy is difficult when the cost of various energy technologies changes over time. Using energy as the cost basis is independent of time. You can go to the link to find out more. There are many charts of this sort by many different institutions that show wind has an economical advantage. Search EROEI on Bing and click the images button.

If you don't want to find out more about EROEI, you might as well continue to make stuff up and bitterly lash out at the world for not believing you.


----------



## IanC (May 15, 2016)

I think there are a lot of hidden costs to renewable energy that don't get factored in properly. As well as some outright scams. Should the energy produced be valued the same when it isn't 'on demand' or reliable? 

I am somewhat optimistic that storage will improve. The new doped plastic battery could be amazing. But it's not actually here yet. And you can seldom rush the advance of technology just by throwing money at it. Ballard was making good money a coupla decades ago when govts funded them to the hilt but I feel sorry for you if you held onto the stock once the subsides were cut.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 15, 2016)

IanC said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Often scientists will say there is a margin of error. You can see charts which show many different possibilities, but the media will take the most sensational and say "Scientists say this could happen" then read changes "could" to "will".

Often the people who read stuff, simply get taken in because they can't connect English words with what they actually mean.


----------



## IanC (May 15, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




Fair enough, but often the scientists are quite happy to be misconstrued. For example, Marcott spent a week on the publicity tour talking about how his new Hockeystick showed warmer recent temps but when he was pointedly questioned, he admitted that his work had no significance after 1900. Why did he not point this out to reporters? Why was he happy to go along with 'Forecast of Doom' stories? The original stories made the news, the retraction did not.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 16, 2016)

How to teach a group of people why "back radiation" is a poor term and deceptive?

First lets look at the the basic molecules and their properties..

CO2:  One Carbon molecule and 2 Oxygen molecules.

The combined molecules do not react to LWIR photons. They absorb and re-emit these photon in 1-3 nanoseconds.  The molecule can not retain heat and does not become excited when it absorbs photons.

H2O; One Hydrogen molecule and 2 Oxygen molecules,

The combined molecules react and are excited by LWIR photons. It warms the molecule and can retain that heat for a time without re-emitting the photon. As the molecule cools the emitted photons wave length increases in length (as evidenced by the increased output wave lengths from water vapor)


The alarmists claim that back radiation will force energy back to the earth. This is actually the residency time of the energy in near surface molecules and slowed rise of heat from the earth.  In the desert, in low humidity (water vapor)  the temperature swing is 60-80 deg F daily showing that the water vapor directly above the surface is responsible for the slowing of the heat rise. CO2 has no effect on the deserts higher ground temps and CO2 not only can not hold heat, it can not re-emit enough, ground ward, to combat the loss.

While the atmosphere may indeed be re-emitting photons towards the ground it is incapable of holding the heat and the LWIR escapes to space rapidly.

Water vapor is the key to the system.  In low convective cycles the day time temps use conduction near ground level to hold heat. at night however that conduction stops and convection releases the heat to space.  Again the LWIR, from rising black body ground heat, is very minutely returned by CO2 re-emittance towards the ground and in insufficient volumes to warm the water vapor in the air.

The whole CO2 meme is total bull shit and has been from day one.  Back radiation is just one more ambiguous term that means exactly squat.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 16, 2016)

IanC said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Well, individuals are individuals, and clearly some people will try and mislead, for whatever reason they think they want to.

But the same happens on the other side too.

The problem is that those who believe there is no man made climate change seem to say if one person slightly exaggerates, or slightly misleads, then the whole thing is a myth and made up and all of that.

Again, ridiculous, it would imply that lying has the ability to stop man made global warming.


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



And you continue to claim that they have data which you are completely unable to produce...do you think they would keep observed, measured, quantified data supporting the claim that man is altering the global climate secret?...


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



No tyrone...what you are going to do with me is continue to prove my claim by not producing any of the observed, measured, quantified data that you claim they have which supports the claim that man is altering the global climate...


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I think he is unaware that water vapor is the only one of the so called greenhouse gasses that can absorb, and actually retain energy....
> ...



Sorry guy...not true at the ambient temperature of the atmosphere


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> ahhhhh. partially consumed fuel that is still hot enough to glow but is no longer producing an open flame?
> 
> do you know why people push the embers of a dying campfire together to restart it? because the embers lose less heat next to another ember than they do to the cooler surrounding environment. the same amount of combustion is capable of producing a higher temperature which leads to open flames again. back radiation from ember to ember, less heat loss, higher temperature at the location of the power source (fuel combustion).



Guess you never tended a fire....people push the embers of a dying campfire together to restrict airflow...less oxygen, less burning...therefore you have coals in the morning to restart your fire.... there is no back radiation happening there...think of another reason...



frigidweirdo said:


> why do people wear clothes? the body warms the clothes to a temperature intermediate between the cooler outside environment and the warmer skin. instead of only the smaller amount of environmental back radiation they get the larger amount from their clothes, hence the body needs to burn less food to stay warm.



No Ian...the body warms the air space between the skin and the clothes....pull the clothes tight to the skin and you won't get warm...no back radiation there either...think of something else.



frigidweirdo said:


> why am I a skeptic who doesnt believe more CO2 will cause a runaway heating?



You aren't a skeptic...you are a believer who just believes the magic isn't as strong as the core of the church...you are one of the guys who sits in the back pews...or maybe the balcony so you can get out early after the service is over.


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, individuals are individuals, and clearly some people will try and mislead, for whatever reason they think they want to.
> 
> But the same happens on the other side too.
> 
> ...



The whole claim of manmade climate change is an exaggeration...there is not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is causing the global climate to change.....it is all based on assumptions...but feel free to prove me wrong and provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2016)

Looky, looky, there's one o' them thar smart photons.


----------



## Wuwei (May 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


That's a bit of self contradiction. Any substance at ambient temperature contains thermal energy. That includes water and other GHG's and O2 and N2. Thermal energy can be retained by those substances and virtually anything else.


----------



## Wuwei (May 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> The whole claim of manmade climate change is an exaggeration...there is not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is causing the global climate to change.....it is all based on assumptions...but feel free to prove me wrong and provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim.


Well, since you don't believe in science, you can believe anything you want.


----------



## Wuwei (May 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> The whole claim of manmade climate change is an exaggeration...there is not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is causing the global climate to change.....it is all based on assumptions...but feel free to prove me wrong and provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim.


You were given that evidence, but you don't believe in science, so you don't understand it.


----------



## Wuwei (May 16, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> CO2: One Carbon molecule and 2 Oxygen molecules.


CO2 is the "molecule". Carbon and Oxygen are called "atoms".


Billy_Bob said:


> The combined molecules do not react to LWIR photons. They absorb and re-emit these photon in 1-3 nanoseconds. The molecule can not retain heat and does not become excited when it absorbs photons.


The combined *atoms *have vibration modes which do react to LWIR.


Billy_Bob said:


> H2O; One Hydrogen molecule and 2 Oxygen molecules,


They are *atoms *not molecules.


Billy_Bob said:


> The combined molecules react and are excited by LWIR photons.


Water has similar vibration modes to CO2


Billy_Bob said:


> The combined molecules react and are excited by LWIR photons. It warms the molecule and can retain that heat for a time without re-emitting the photon.


Combined *atoms!! * A *single *molecule does not *warm*. It takes an ensemble of molecules to define *heat*. In absorbing LWIR a single molecule will excite one of it's vibration states. That is called an excited molecule; not heat.

The rest of your essay doesn't follow because of your faulty premises on molecules absorbing LWIR.

Billy Bob you are making stuff up again. It just doesn't work for you.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> And you continue to claim that they have data which you are completely unable to produce...do you think they would keep observed, measured, quantified data supporting the claim that man is altering the global climate secret?...


The only one that has real Truth is you Einstein ...NOAA NASA what do they know oh Great Master of Climate


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> No tyrone...what you are going to do with me is continue to prove my claim by not producing any of the observed, measured, quantified data that you claim they have which supports the claim that man is altering the global climate...



The Truth is out there LOL you are a NOBODY in Climate...the people who are somebody in climate agree with the positions I support because its their positions ...it eats you up LOL...you are a zero...Facts are not going to sway you because it is not by fact that you have reached your positions ...


----------



## Wuwei (May 16, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And you continue to claim that they have data which you are completely unable to produce...do you think they would keep observed, measured, quantified data supporting the claim that man is altering the global climate secret?...
> ...


Calling him Einstein is an insult because he doesn't believe in Einstein's theories.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > ahhhhh. partially consumed fuel that is still hot enough to glow but is no longer producing an open flame?
> ...



You know I didn't write this, and if you click back to the post that you linked to this, it doesn't say any of this. Confused.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Well, individuals are individuals, and clearly some people will try and mislead, for whatever reason they think they want to.
> ...



So, there's no evidence to support that man ISN'T changing the climate either, according to you logic, therefore all based on assumptions.

But again, I know when people say things like "provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence" that it's just going to be a waste of time. The person who says things like this has narrowed everything down to the point where they don't have to bother thinking, and sits smuggley, having decided they're right after dismissing all evidence because it doesn't suit their agenda.


----------



## IanC (May 16, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




Do you even know what the mainline skeptical position is? It is AGW lite vs CAGW. No skeptical scientists like Curry or Lindzen are saying the Greenhouse Effect isn't real. They are saying the effect is real but exaggerated positive feedbacks are not. 1C warming per 2xCO2 is not going to cause calamity. In the last five years the climate sensitivity has continued to drop from 3C, and seems to be converging to roughly 1C. Another paper just came out of Ireland saying the same thing, and pointed out more flaws in the GCMs.

You say exaggerations and misdirections don't disprove the basic theory. We're not disputing the basic theory. We're pointing out the exaggerations and flaws that lead to misdirection. Science is supposed to be scrupulous. Allowing mistakes to continue after they have been pointed out is the true anti-science.


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> So, there's no evidence to support that man ISN'T changing the climate either, according to you logic, therefore all based on assumptions.



No actual evidence....no.



frigidweirdo said:


> But again, I know when people say things like "provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence" that it's just going to be a waste of time. The person who says things like this has narrowed everything down to the point where they don't have to bother thinking, and sits smuggley, having decided they're right after dismissing all evidence because it doesn't suit their agenda.



Are you suggesting that the atmosphere and climate are not observable, measurable, quantifiable entities?....doesn't it strike you odd that there would be no observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW considering that both the climate and atmosphere are observable, measurable, and quantifiable?

You just don't like people asking for actual evidence which does not exist.


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2016)

IanC said:


> Do you even know what the mainline skeptical position is? It is AGW lite vs CAGW. No skeptical scientists like Curry or Lindzen are saying the Greenhouse Effect isn't real. They are saying the effect is real but exaggerated positive feedbacks are not. 1C warming per 2xCO2 is not going to cause calamity. In the last five years the climate sensitivity has continued to drop from 3C, and seems to be converging to roughly 1C. Another paper just came out of Ireland saying the same thing, and pointed out more flaws in the GCMs.
> 
> You say exaggerations and misdirections don't disprove the basic theory. We're not disputing the basic theory. We're pointing out the exaggerations and flaws that lead to misdirection. Science is supposed to be scrupulous. Allowing mistakes to continue after they have been pointed out is the true anti-science.



The greenhouse hypothesis can not even predict the temperature of earth without a fudge factor...it can't even come close with other planets...it isn't a valid hypothesis...and if science is actual scrupulous, how does a hypothesis become accepted if it requires a fudge factor to even predict the temperature here?


----------



## IanC (May 16, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> How to teach a group of people why "back radiation" is a poor term and deceptive?
> 
> First lets look at the the basic molecules and their properties..
> 
> ...




Billybob is back to bafflegab again. Hahahaha. 

One thing I would like to point out is that at STP for the surface, the re-emission time for an excited CO2 molecule is roughly ten times longer than the time between molecular collisions. The energy used to excite the molecule is more likely to be converted into general energy, of which the kinetic portion is known as temperature.

Billybob's post is so full of mistakes it is hard to believe he has taken even high school science classes.


----------



## IanC (May 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Do you even know what the mainline skeptical position is? It is AGW lite vs CAGW. No skeptical scientists like Curry or Lindzen are saying the Greenhouse Effect isn't real. They are saying the effect is real but exaggerated positive feedbacks are not. 1C warming per 2xCO2 is not going to cause calamity. In the last five years the climate sensitivity has continued to drop from 3C, and seems to be converging to roughly 1C. Another paper just came out of Ireland saying the same thing, and pointed out more flaws in the GCMs.
> ...



I have asked you multiple times in the past to explain your position and debate the points. You refused then and I expect you will refuse now. 

I have read the articles that you get your talking points from and find them to be mostly exercises in line fitting, although I have brought up the fact that atmospheres are a function of solar (and sometimes to a lesser degree geothermal and gravity tide) input. Solar defines the general range, composition refines it, especially the thermal gradient from surface to TOA.


----------



## mamooth (May 16, 2016)

IanC said:


> . Another paper just came out of Ireland saying the same thing, and pointed out more flaws in the GCMs.



The Bates paper. The author couldn't get it past review at a mainstream journal, so he went journal-hunting until he found a small unknown journal, not related to climate, with a lazy editor. The Bates paper is based on the really bad Lindzen and Choi (2011) paper that had to be sneaked into an unknown Korean journal. So, garbage in, garbage out. Here's Dessler from 2013 taking down what Bates put in his latest paper.

Dropbox - BatesResponse.docx


----------



## IanC (May 16, 2016)

mamooth said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > . Another paper just came out of Ireland saying the same thing, and pointed out more flaws in the GCMs.
> ...




Sorry, my phone doesn't handle that format.

So what you are saying is that only 'approved' peer review, by 'approved' scientists is acceptable. I seem to remember quite a few of the climategate emails discussing that very topic. Perhaps the climate science echelon can get the editor of this journal fired for accepting an unwelcome paper, as they have done multiple times in the past.


----------



## IanC (May 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > ahhhhh. partially consumed fuel that is still hot enough to glow but is no longer producing an open flame?
> ...




My guess is that you are being obtuse about campfires. 

Campfires die out because the fuel has been mostly spent and the heat is no longer high enough to promote open flames without more fuel or more oxygen. To put out a fire you simply spread out the embers and the increased heat loss stops the reaction.

Your digression into 'laying to' a campfire, with lots of fuel but limited access to oxygen is a skillful art that often just results in a delayed bonfire when the bulk fuel warms to the ignition point.


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Believe on Garth...


----------



## Markle (May 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



IF, the "Perfect Reflector" could not absorb energy, it would be as cold as outer space.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 16, 2016)

Markle said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Slaver Stasis Fields


----------



## Markle (May 16, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> _Cheapest Solar Ever: Austin Energy Gets 1.2 Gigawatts of Solar Bids for Less Than 4 Cents
> 
> Correction: Khalil Shalabi said was that 1,295 megawatts were priced below the Recurrent solar deal from last year, which was under 5 cents per kilowatt-hour not under 4 cents per kilowatt-hour._
> 
> ...



How much is Recurrent Energy receiving in government subsidies, tax credits or whatever?


----------



## Markle (May 16, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



You stated:  
"So, there's no evidence to support that man ISN'T changing the climate either, according to you logic, therefore all based on assumptions."

That's not true.

Where have any of the forecasts from Global Warming radicals proven to be true?  Simple...none.We

We've had, as you know, nearly two decades without Global Warming.

We've had nearly that long where the product from your Global Warming promoters has been to be fraudulent, figures adjusted with the intent to make it APPEAR that Global Warming had taken place.  All in order to keep the grants coming to pay for the phony science.


----------



## Crick (May 16, 2016)

Markle said:


> How much is Recurrent Energy receiving in government subsidies, tax credits or whatever?



*Lowest price yet for solar?*
I have a hard time believing that’s the lowest solar power has gone for anywhere in the world, but it may be the lowest in the US if you remove state subsidies from other projects.

We reported last February on a PPA in New Mexico in which First Solar was selling electricity for 5.8¢/kWh. That’s the lowest I think I have seen. However, GTM Solar Analyst Cory Honeyman says that “new PPAs signed in North Carolina fetched prices for less than 7 cents per kilowatt-hour.” The notable difference in the New Mexico and North Carolina projects, as implied above — they took advantage of in-state subsidies for solar. That’s not the story with this Texas deal.

*SunEdison project beat natural gas, coal, and nuclear on price*
If you removed the ITC (a federal tax credit for solar), the cost would probably be about 8¢/kWh. Still, that’s not bad. Austin Energy’s 30-year LCOE estimate for natural gas was 7¢/kWh, while the estimate for coal clocked in at 10¢/kWh and the estimate for nuclear at 13¢/kWh.

Only wind — 2.8¢/kWh to 3.8¢/kWh — was lower.

Solar Less Than 5¢/kWh In Austin, Texas! (Cheaper Than Natural Gas, Coal, & Nuclear)


----------



## Crick (May 16, 2016)

Coal, approximately 11 cents/kwhr
Natural gas, approximately 10 cents/kwhr
Nuclear, approximately 9.5 cents/kwhr

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Source


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 16, 2016)

IanC said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




Misdirection is a part of science. People look, they attempt to prove, they might fail, others criticize and then people try again and again.

However, if you haven't noticed, many people on this forum just deny, and they use any kind of "mistake" to "prove" that it's not happening.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > So, there's no evidence to support that man ISN'T changing the climate either, according to you logic, therefore all based on assumptions.
> ...



Well, I'm saying you can always present doubt.

If the temperature rises 1 degree over ten years. Does this mean it's man made global warming or just natural warming? 

My theory is that we're supposed to be going through a natural cooling phase. In the last 400,000 years we've had a massive rise in temperatures and then once it's hit the top, then it goes down quite a bit afterwards. I have reason to believe we're in that dropping phase now. 

So, if man made global warming increases temperatures by 2.2 degrees, and natural cooling is dropping temperatures by 2 degrees. What do you get?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 16, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> How to teach a group of people why "back radiation" is a poor term and deceptive?
> 
> First lets look at the the basic molecules and their properties..
> 
> ...


I hate it when I do that..  It should have read "atoms"


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 16, 2016)

Markle said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



As I've said before, people make predictions based on the evidence they've got. Just because they haven't got their prediction science right yet, doesn't mean that something isn't happening. 

You don't seem to understand how science works. 

People make hypothesis, they go and try and prove it, they think they succeed or they don't, and their work gets peer reviewed and criticized if they think they got it, and then they go back to the drawing board if there isn't consensus. 

You seem to be making out that because these guys aren't getting it spot on, that nothing is happening. As if, one day they get it right, then all of a sudden man made global warming starts to do something.

That's ridiculous. What is happening is happening. The fact that we, as humans, don't understand it perfectly, is neither here nor there.

Look at weather forecasts. Do they get it right all the time? Do you sit watching the weather forecast and see they predict rain, and then say "well, they sometimes get it wrong, so what they say IS WRONG, therefore they have shown it WON'T RAIN"??? That's basically your argument.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 16, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



*So, if man made global warming increases temperatures by 2.2 degrees, and natural cooling is dropping temperatures by 2 degrees. What do you get?
*
You get to thank CO2 for preventing a new ice age.
Ice ages really suck.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 16, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > CO2: One Carbon molecule and 2 Oxygen molecules.
> ...




Nope.....

That should have read "Atoms", Posting while tired is not the best thing in the world...

Molecules are the basis of warming. If they are not excitable they do not create thermal output.  CO2 does not become warm when it absorbs and re-emits a photon. The rate of photon release is 100%

Water however is quite different. It becomes excited and as those molecules then bounce around. They create thermal output and warm. As convection and upward motion occur, it cools the molecules. they re-emit at lower spectrum values placing much out of reach of CO2 to absorb and re-emit while then being unrestricted allowing escape to space. The water vapor re-nucleates into droplets or ice crystals once the heat is fully released and the molecule becomes stable again.

Residency time (how long the heat stays near surface) is the key to the whole premise.

As we see in deserts, when no or low water vapor is present, CO2 can not hold the warmth near surface. And within minuets of sun set the temp drop is near 35 deg F. Within 3 hours the air temp has fallen 75-100 degrees.  When you realize the ground temp was 135 degrees (in  the sun) and it took just three hours to drop to near freezing you finally get the drift.

You say back-radiation  warms water in the atmosphere but you cant quantify or measure it. No tropospheric hot spot has occurred.  Heat loss can be measured in reference to humidity levels and depth of cloud formation leaving CO2 totally out of the equations.  Without CO2 being able to retain heat your whole AGW premise dies...


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Ice age? Not necessarily. But it might come. However ice ages are natural, potentially there's a purpose to them.

Mao (on the 50th anniversary of the start of the cultural revolution) decided to kill all the birds, why? Because the birds were eating the crops. Simple right? 

Well no, because the birds also ate the insects that then went and ate even more of the crops, causing millions of people to die. 

Nature has its ways.... you disrespect them at your peril.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 16, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


*
Ice age? Not necessarily. But it might come. However ice ages are natural,
*
Yes, ice ages are natural.
If we need to burn twice as much coal to prevent an ice age, we should do it.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No, we should not. 

You don't know the consequences of such an action.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Going to double my wood pile this year... Long range patterns say it should be a cold one and longer for most of the US this year.  Current patterns look to remain for one more month or so.. It looks to be a short lived summer for the Northern Hemisphere..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 16, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Preventing an ice age would save billions of lives. Yes, we should work to prevent an ice age, if we can.


----------



## IanC (May 16, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




I think it was Heisenberg who coined the phrase "He's not even wrong", after sitting through an incoherent dissertation. Billybob takes it to a new level.

For those who are not sure what 'The Hot Spot' is all about, here is a ridiculously simplified explanation. AGW models claim that the 1C warming caused by doubling CO2 will be tripled in most part by increased evaporation. This increase of water vapour by convection should be dumping much more heat into the atmosphere at the cloud boundary, causing a hot spot. There has been no, or very little increase. This doesn't disprove AGW, but it does mean the climate models are incorrect.


----------



## Crick (May 16, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Going to double my wood pile this year... Long range patterns say it should be a cold one and longer for most of the US this year.  Current patterns look to remain for one more month or so.. It looks to be a short lived summer for the Northern Hemisphere..



Does this have as much predictive power as your repeated assertions that the El Nino just passing was going to last a week or two tops?


----------



## Wuwei (May 16, 2016)

IanC said:


> I think it was Heisenberg who coined the phrase "He's not even wrong", after sitting through an incoherent dissertation. Billybob takes it to a new level.


I have a morbid fascination of the weird things that SSDD and his minions expound on. Yes, I remember the phrase "not even wrong". Moe and his stooges are a prime example.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You don't know this. You're just making it up.

If you go against nature, it could potentially destroy the planet. Which could wipe humans out.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 16, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



*If you go against nature, it could potentially destroy the planet.
*
How would adding more CO2 to prevent an ice age and save billions of lives "potentially destroy the planet"?


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 16, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



How? I don't necessarily know. 

That doesn't mean it's not the case.

What temperature level can humans live within? 40 degrees is hot. 50 degrees is doable, 60 degrees is probably too hot.

What we also don't know is what happens when too much change happens in a short period of time. 

Crops, animals, other sources of food are living within their limits on this planet. When things start changing, maybe it will be impossible to live.


Here's the deal. You want to jump off a high cliff into the sea. It's doable, people do it. However you don't know anything about this particular cliff, you don't know what's in sea below, you don't know if it's safe to jump, you don't know if the sea will kill you even if you survive the fall. You know nothing.

Are you going to make the jump? Or are you going to test everything to make sure it's safe before you jump?


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 17, 2016)

Crick said:


> You'd have us sitting at the top of the cliff till its too late.  Many scientists believe that's already the case.  On behalf of my children and there's, fuck you very much.



Until it's too late for what? Sitting on the cliff is not taking the leap into the unknown. The unknown is the effect of man made climate change. Doing something to prevent man made climate change is sitting on the cliff. Jumping in is saying to hell with the consequences.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

Crick said:


> You'd have us sitting at the top of the cliff till its too late.  Many scientists believe that's already the case. .........


*April Temperature Anomalies - Global vs. Northern Hemisphere*
These graphs are based on the April anomalies from the NASA GISS data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.csv
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/NH.Ts.csv

I chose to normalize my graphs to the average of 1880-1930 readings. I chose 1930 as the baseline cutoff point because that was just before the first step change is visible in the data.

The Northern Hemisphere (NH) has been consistently warmer than the global average. 

In April 2016, the global anomaly relative to the chosen baseline was +1.8° C. 

The Northern Hemisphere 2016 anomaly was half a degree higher than the global anomaly: *+2.32° C* above the baseline.
I looked at linear trends since 1965, which is when the temperatures really began to rise.

The world appears to be warming at about 0.2° C per decade, while the NH is warming at 0.3° C per decade. 

The NH trend finishes in 2050 at *+2.75° C* 

The global anomaly trend finishes at about *+2.15° C* 


The global anomaly in 2016 was *0.55° C* higher than the 2010-2015 average. 

The NH anomaly was* 0.685° C higher* than the preceding 5 year-average.
A note about El Nino:

There has been a lot of speculation about how much the recent El Nino has added to the recent temperature increase. On these graphs you can see that the 1998 El Nino caused quite a minor deviation. In 2016, the global temperature response to El Nino has been about 50% stronger than in 1998, but the NH response was only 10% stronger, compared to the anomaly one year earlier in 1997 and 2015.
I expect the temperature rise over the next year or two to moderate from the torrid pace of 2016, perhaps by a couple of tenths of a degree or so. In the other hand, it could be that 2016 marks another acceleration point, similar to what the world saw in 1965. We'll have to wait and see. While it's too early to declare a non-linear trend, but it seems to be a definite possibility.

It looks like some really bad times are coming.


----------



## Crick (May 17, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You'd have us sitting at the top of the cliff till its too late.  Many scientists believe that's already the case.  On behalf of my children and there's, fuck you very much.
> ...



Then I have stepped into the conversation facing in the wrong direction.  Mea culpa for assuming that an action was being used as an analogy for an action and vice versa. Post deleted.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 17, 2016)

Crick said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



No worries, I kind of thought that might be the case. It's a bit of a strange analogy, but the one that sticks in my head.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


*
What we also don't know is what happens when too much change happens in a short period of time.
*
An ice age would be too much change. Prevent the ice age, prevent the change.
And save billions of lives.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



But ice ages have happened in the past. They're natural, they're predictable, and humans have lived through them. 

You're basically making stuff up and hoping to pass it off as intelligent thought.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


*
But ice ages have happened in the past. They're natural,
*
Yes.
*
they're predictable*

Really? When is the next one?

*and humans have lived through them. 
*
Yes. How many would live through the next one?


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



When is the next one? Or when should the next one be? 

Also it depends what you mean by an ice age, there are real hard ice ages, then there are little ones. 

However I didn't say they were predictable for when they happen, I said they were predictable in what happens when one happens. 

How many would live through the next one? You know that's a silly question. 

However you also don't know how many people would live through the impact of man made global warming. 

So.....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



*However I didn't say they were predictable for when they happen, I said they were predictable in what happens when one happens.
*
When they happen, shorter growing seasons, hunger, famine, death.
If we can prevent one or delay one by burning fossil fuels, we'd save billions of lives.


----------



## mamooth (May 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How would adding more CO2 to prevent an ice age and save billions of lives "potentially destroy the planet"?



Because it would be like running my furnace full blast starting in July, because I know winter is eventually coming. I'd die of heatstroke before I saved myself from the winter cold.

The ice age is at least 25,000 years away. Killing billions of people now by deliberately overheating the earth is an extremely stupid and evil idea. Anyone wanting that outcome shows themselves to be a genocide-pusher looking for a body count that would outdo Hitler, Stalin and Mao combined. Is that really your goal?


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How would adding more CO2 to prevent an ice age and save billions of lives "potentially destroy the planet"?
> ...


dude/dudette, my furnace is running today May17th.  It's one month from summer, and I'm still running my furnace.  Now that is truly sad.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How would adding more CO2 to prevent an ice age and save billions of lives "potentially destroy the planet"?
> ...


*
The ice age is at least 25,000 years away*

How do you know?
*
Killing billions of people now by deliberately overheating the earth*

How would that kill billions?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2016)

Going into the Younger Dryas, a very rapid drop in temperature, the North American continentant had


jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


And here in Oregon and Washington we have had a record breaking warm winter and spring.


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Going into the Younger Dryas, a very rapid drop in temperature, the North American continentant had
> 
> 
> jc456 said:
> ...


well not sure how that correlates into a global influence at all.  Good for you, i'd take it.


----------



## SSDD (May 17, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The whole claim of manmade climate change is an exaggeration...there is not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is causing the global climate to change.....it is all based on assumptions...but feel free to prove me wrong and provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim.
> ...



There was no evidence supporting the A in AGW...claiming to have posted it when you didn't doesn't alter the fact that you didn't..and when I asked how you supposed that what was provided supported the A in AGW...you had no answer...because it didn't support the A in AGW...


----------



## RollingThunder (May 17, 2016)

SSDD said:


> The whole claim of manmade climate change is an exaggeration...there is not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is causing the global climate to change.....it is all based on assumptions...but feel free to prove me wrong and provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim.





Wuwei said:


> You were given that evidence, but you don't believe in science, so you don't understand it.





SSDD said:


> There was no evidence supporting the A in AGW...claiming to have posted it when you didn't doesn't alter the fact that you didn't..and when I asked how you supposed that what was provided supported the A in AGW...you had no answer...because it didn't support the A in AGW...



The world scientific community is virtually unanimous in affirming the reality of human caused, or 'anthropogenic', global warming. You idiotically claim otherwise. Who should we believe.....trained professional scientists....or a confused brainwashed retard like you, SSoooDDuuumb?

The obvious answer may not be so apparent to you, of course.....because you are such a dumbshit....


----------



## Wuwei (May 17, 2016)

SSDD said:


> There was no evidence supporting the A in AGW...claiming to have posted it when you didn't doesn't alter the fact that you didn't..and when I asked how you supposed that what was provided supported the A in AGW...you had no answer...because it didn't support the A in AGW...


It was given by IanC to show backradiation here:


IanC said:


> Figure 2. Photographs showing the BSRN station and the 200 m tower in Cabauw. The basic radiation measurements consist of global, direct, diffuse and downward longwave radiation. In addition, various spectral solar radiation measurements are made.
> 
> KNMI (also a repository of climate data archives) is an active member of a group that studies radiation around the world. To say that there is no measured data is absurd in the extreme.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Again, how many times do I have to say this? You don't know how many people would die from making the Earth warmer....

So your argument is ridiculous.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Fewer than would die from a new ice age.
By orders of magnitude.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Again, you're telling me this as if you know. You DON'T KNOW. So stop pretending you do. 

We know the impact of an ice age. 

We DON'T KNOW the impact of man made global warming.

It's not difficult.


----------



## SSDD (May 18, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> My theory is that we're supposed to be going through a natural cooling phase. In the last 400,000 years we've had a massive rise in temperatures and then once it's hit the top, then it goes down quite a bit afterwards. I have reason to believe we're in that dropping phase now.



Based on what?  There are no historical proxies that provide enough resolution for you to say that during this 50 or 100 year period we should be cooling...there is simply no basis for such a claim other than simple baseless belief.


----------



## SSDD (May 18, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The whole claim of manmade climate change is an exaggeration...there is not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is causing the global climate to change.....it is all based on assumptions...but feel free to prove me wrong and provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim.
> ...



Based on what when they have no observed, measured, quantified data to support the claim?


----------



## SSDD (May 18, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > There was no evidence supporting the A in AGW...claiming to have posted it when you didn't doesn't alter the fact that you didn't..and when I asked how you supposed that what was provided supported the A in AGW...you had no answer...because it didn't support the A in AGW...
> ...



What was given was evidence that Ian can easily be fooled by instrumentation...pyrogeometers operate via a thermopile and a mathematical model based on a radiator emitting into a vacuum at 0 degrees K....they aren't measuring back radiation...


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 18, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > My theory is that we're supposed to be going through a natural cooling phase. In the last 400,000 years we've had a massive rise in temperatures and then once it's hit the top, then it goes down quite a bit afterwards. I have reason to believe we're in that dropping phase now.
> ...



Hence why it's my theory.

However, if there is natural global cooling along with man made global warming, what do you have?

People come on here and say things like "well we're not getting as hot as we should be, therefore there's no man made global warming", well, what if there's natural cooling going on with man made warming?


----------



## Wuwei (May 18, 2016)

SSDD said:


> What was given was evidence that Ian can easily be fooled by instrumentation...pyrogeometers operate via a thermopile and a mathematical model based on a radiator emitting into a vacuum at 0 degrees K....they aren't measuring back radiation...


You wanted observed measured evidence. When you were given evidence you say people can be fooled by it. Go figure.


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The whole claim of manmade climate change is an exaggeration...there is not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is causing the global climate to change.....it is all based on assumptions...but feel free to prove me wrong and provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim.
> ...


show the names of those who agree with that.  Judith Curry doesn't have that belief.  She believes that humans put CO2 in the atmosphere, hell, anyone who doesn't understand that is nuts.  the fact is you can't show that the CO2 causes any warming.  See, that is the argument.  And since you can't present that evidence, than man can't be causing warming. DOH!


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What was given was evidence that Ian can easily be fooled by instrumentation...pyrogeometers operate via a thermopile and a mathematical model based on a radiator emitting into a vacuum at 0 degrees K....they aren't measuring back radiation...
> ...


you never gave any evidence.  That is just a lie.


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > There was no evidence supporting the A in AGW...claiming to have posted it when you didn't doesn't alter the fact that you didn't..and when I asked how you supposed that what was provided supported the A in AGW...you had no answer...because it didn't support the A in AGW...
> ...


that doesn't prove back radiation.  It proves radiation, but not back.  So try again.


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


well the fact is that if back radiation were a real thing, the fact that less LWIR is in the atmosphere means there would be less to absorb and less  to emit back to the surface which would mean no warming.  But since there is no back radiation, the fact is the earth is cooling. It's why there was a pause.  hmmmmmmm, even IPCC agreed with the little to no warming.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?


----------



## IanC (May 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Hahahaha

What is the difference between racism and reverse racism?


Bonus points for inserting political affiliation into the explanations of both back radiation and reverse racism.

Hahahaha


----------



## SSDD (May 18, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > What was given was evidence that Ian can easily be fooled by instrumentation...pyrogeometers operate via a thermopile and a mathematical model based on a radiator emitting into a vacuum at 0 degrees K....they aren't measuring back radiation...
> ...




All I was given evidence of was that people who want to believe can easily be fooled by instrumentation...Like I said, you guys have provided all sorts of evidence  for something...just not in support of the A in AGW.


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward. I'm sure there is radiation from everything, so claiming something came for the atmosphere is slim to none.  Especially if cooling is necessary to read it.  so, again, cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm, so same argument we've had for months and a year now.  We've gone cyclical, and you still haven't proven back radiation. This does not prove it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*well the surface produces radiation and it goes upward.*

And the atmosphere emits radiation, which goes in all directions.
*
cool does not flow to warm and the atmosphere is cool and the surface is warm
*
We're not discussing cool, or warm, we're discussing radiation.

What is the difference between radiation and back radiation?


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


it still matters.

And back radiation is IR that would be re-emitted and is coming from somewhere back from once it came.  And in the atmosphere, that doesn't happen.

Oh, and if temperatures didn't apply, why does one need to cool the instrument to read?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*it still matters.
*
All matter above 0K radiates, in all directions.
Warmer just emits more than colder
*
And back radiation is IR that would be re-emitted and is coming from somewhere back from once it came.
*
Great. We agree the ground emits. We agree the atmosphere absorbs some of the energy emitted from the ground and then emits.

*And in the atmosphere, that doesn't happen.
*
The atmosphere doesn't emit? Why not?
Or do you mean it emits, but not toward the ground?
So why doesn't it emit toward the ground?

*Oh, and if temperatures didn't apply, why does one need to cool the instrument to read?
*
You think the atmosphere doesn't emit toward the instrument until the instant it is cooled below a certain temp?
How does it know the temp of the instrument? Is the GHG smart? Does it have a thermometer?
Or is that the job of the photon?


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Warmer just emits more than colder*

but can you prove that the gases are indeed emitting?  do you know it takes an action to cause that right?  And what if that action doesn't happen?  Can you prove vibration and that IR is emitted? Nope.
*
How does it know the temp of the instrument*

How would I know?  the issue is that you have no idea what the instrument is even reading.  Why does it take the instrument to be cooled down to read something?

Where is your evidence of back radiation?  You keep asking me questions and keep avoiding mine.  Funny how that kinda shit works in this forum.


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


you know that doesn't prove anything with regard to the discussion of back radiation right?


----------



## IanC (May 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




jc - you are not thinking this through to a coherent understanding.

Let's use a common handheld IR temperature detector for the example. If you point it at something warmer than the instrument it gives a reading. How? It receives more radiation than it is giving out, and warms. Point it at something at the same temperature and it receives the same amount of radiation that it gives out so it neither warms nor cools. Point it at something cooler than the instrument and it receives less radiation than it gives out, so it cools. It is the net amount of radiation that allows it to estimate the temperature of what it is pointed at. If there was no radiation coming from a cooler object then it could only read 'cooler', and it would not be able to say 'this much cooler'.

If you can explain your way out of this logical dilemma please pass it along to the rest of us.


----------



## IanC (May 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




I was pointing out how racism is racism no matter which direction it is going. Adding 'reverse' makes it obvious in which direction. The caricature liberal position says it cannot happen in that direction. 

Radiation is radiation, no matter which direction. Adding 'back' makes it obvious which direction. The caricature conservative position is that cannot happen in that direction.

Obviously, at least to me, radiation and racism can both go in all directions. I was making a statement on how politics can cloud the understanding of the issues. I thought it was a witty comparison but perhaps my sense of humour doesn't appeal to everyone.


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


sorry, but first off, I thought you told me that IR didn't have a temperature?


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


racism, well, that term is well associated with white people.  Reverse racism would be someone of a minority group be racist toward a white.  It does have direction like do warm to cold movements.

*Radiation is radiation, no matter which direction. Adding 'back' makes it obvious which direction. The caricature conservative position is that cannot happen in that direction*

if radiation is radiation why are the wavelengths different? how do you know if a reading is back?  what stands out from the reading?


----------



## IanC (May 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...









Two Planck curves, one twenty degrees cooler than the other. The range is practically identical. Only the amounts at any wavelength is different. A 20 micron photon produced by either object is identical and cannot be tied to a specific temperature. 

The area under the pink curve is the backradiation, and balances out for no net change. The area between the blue and pink curves is the energy not balanced out, and is therefore available to warm the cooler object.

Does that make it any clearer for you?


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


so why isn't there back radiation happening under the blue curve? And, why isn't there scattering under them?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



How does it know the temp of the instrument

*How would I know?* 

Because it can't, doesn't and it doesn't matter what temperature the instrument is at as far as the photon is concerned.

*but can you prove that the gases are indeed emitting?
*
Are they above 0K? If they are, they're emitting.
*
the issue is that you have no idea what the instrument is even reading.* 

It's reading the radiation emitted by the atmosphere down toward the ground. Back radiation.

*Where is your evidence of back radiation?
*
Readings from sky facing instruments. Basic physics.

*You keep asking me questions and keep avoiding mine.* 

Did you ever explain how a photon emitted by CO2 or water vapor refuses to travel toward the ground?
I know you've said before that it can travel down but never reaches the ground. Can you explain why not?

In a way that makes sense I mean.


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


See there you go, LOL.  Yeah fair exchange bubba.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I answered 4 questions in that post.
You can't tell me what magic prevents emission toward the ground? LOL!


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I said temperature how many posts back and before.And is CO2 even emitting in the atmosphere.  You can't prove it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Temperature is the answer to some question? That's funny.

Yes, CO2 above 0K in the atmosphere is emitting.

If you can prove it doesn't, you'd be famous for a good reason.


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


no, you prove it does.  I owe you nothing that is your claim.  You claim it does prove it.  don't shift your burden on me. I don't accept.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



CO2 above 0K in the atmosphere is emitting. As you've previously admitted.
Did you forget? Were you drunk posting? Suffer a recent brain injury?

Of course you can't prove it doesn't emit.


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I've read more material and no more do I believe that.  nopers of course you can't prove it does.  otherwise you'd just show me and shut me up.  you can't and it's busting your balls.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*I've read more material and no more do I believe that.
*
What did you read that showed you CO2 never emits?


----------



## SSDD (May 18, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc - you are not thinking this through to a coherent understanding.
> 
> Let's use a common handheld IR temperature detector for the example. If you point it at something warmer than the instrument it gives a reading. How? It receives more radiation than it is giving out, and warms. Point it at something at the same temperature and it receives the same amount of radiation that it gives out so it neither warms nor cools. Point it at something cooler than the instrument and it receives less radiation than it gives out, so it cools. It is the net amount of radiation that allows it to estimate the temperature of what it is pointed at. If there was no radiation coming from a cooler object then it could only read 'cooler', and it would not be able to say 'this much cooler'.
> 
> If you can explain your way out of this logical dilemma please pass it along to the rest of us.



Says the guy who is fooling himself with instrumentation...You are only partly right in how the IR thermometer works...It has an internal thermopile...if you aim it at a warmer object, it does receive radiation from that object and warms up and the internal computer measures the rate of change to determine the temperature of the object...if you point it at an object of the same temperature the temperature of the thermopile doesn't change and the appropriate temperature is displayed...you miss the boat, however, on what happens when you point it at a cooler object....if you point it at a cooler object, the thermopile loses heat to the cooler object and the internal computer registers the rate of change and displays the temperature...no radiation is coming in from the cooler object...the device is simply measuring how quickly its internal thermopile is losing heat to the object it is focused upon.  It says this much cooler by the same mathematical model as it says this much warmer or the same temperature....

Fooling yourself with instrumentation is just dumb Ian...learn what it is and is not measuring.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc - you are not thinking this through to a coherent understanding.
> ...



*....if you point it at a cooler object, the thermopile loses heat to the cooler object and the internal computer registers the rate of change and displays the temperature...no radiation is coming in from the cooler object...
*
Of course, the smart photons don't get emitted toward a warmer object, because....derp!


----------



## IanC (May 18, 2016)

jc - can you see that the blue curve completely encloses the pink curve?

The area enclosed by the pink curve exactly matches the same area under the blue curve except for the portion between the two curves. The bottom section balances out, as if they were the same temperature, input equals output. But the blue object is warmer so it produces more radiation. The excess is the area between the two curves, which add energy to the pink object and subtract from the blue.

In a nutshell, this is the visual mechanism which explains why net energy transfer always goes from warm to cool. Heat, not energy. There is always a balanced portion which exchanges energy for a net difference of zero, and an excess that warms the cooler object at the expense of the warmer one.

Remember, this is for two objects at different temperatures moving towards equilibrium, with no outside power source. There is no point in delving into more complicated scenarios until you grasp the basics.


----------



## IanC (May 18, 2016)

SSDD, message 930 also explains the IR gun. It measures it's own temperature, then measures how much radiation it is gaining or losing to the object it is pointing at, and calculates the temperature difference. The portion of radiation that cancels out is still happening in both directions but it doesn't cause a gain or loss. It does however exchange momentum and increase entropy.


----------



## SSDD (May 18, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD, message 930 also explains the IR gun. It measures it's own temperature, then measures how much radiation it is gaining or losing to the object it is pointing at, and calculates the temperature difference. The portion of radiation that cancels out is still happening in both directions but it doesn't cause a gain or loss. It does however exchange momentum and increase entropy.



Energy exchange is always a gross one way transfer...not net...it's nice that you have a chart where you can visualize your imagination..and have one more way to fool yourself.....unfortunately a chart is all you will ever have....net energy transfer has never been observed in the history of the universe.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD, message 930 also explains the IR gun. It measures it's own temperature, then measures how much radiation it is gaining or losing to the object it is pointing at, and calculates the temperature difference. The portion of radiation that cancels out is still happening in both directions but it doesn't cause a gain or loss. It does however exchange momentum and increase entropy.
> ...



Derp....smart photons are smart....derp.


----------



## IanC (May 18, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD, message 930 also explains the IR gun. It measures it's own temperature, then measures how much radiation it is gaining or losing to the object it is pointing at, and calculates the temperature difference. The portion of radiation that cancels out is still happening in both directions but it doesn't cause a gain or loss. It does however exchange momentum and increase entropy.
> ...




Gross means tallying up all the individual components. Net means the surplus and final direction.

You haven't explained how your smart photons or their smart emitters acquire their information. Or the discrepancy in entropy that would ensue. Care to take a stab at it? Of course not. Hahahaha


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 18, 2016)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > How to teach a group of people why "back radiation" is a poor term and deceptive?
> ...


Funny:  You still haven't found the missing troposphereic hot spot either..  now why would that be?  Your understanding is flawed.. Just like Trenbreth.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 18, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



In order to prove "back Radiation" you would first need to with the spectral bounds of the gas or solid emitting.  Then you would have to identify what molecule is actually emitting as many gases overlap bands of the spectrum. Then you would have to show that it was not reflected and rule out other sources...  Then once you have identified each source you would have to prove the direction of travel...

It hasn't been done...  unless you believe in smart photons and devices that are capable of identifying where they came from..


----------



## Crick (May 18, 2016)

Wrong:    *Evans 2006*
Here is the brief version of the paper's abstract.  There is an extended version at the link. The full paper may be read at  https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.
*This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming*.
*******************************************************************************
The graph below is a direct measurement of that backradiation that some of your fellow deniers here claim doesn't exist or can't be measured.  The radiation from water vapor has been filtered out so that the effects of other gases may be seen.  We can see carbon dioxide (CO2), two varieties of freon (CFC11 and CFC12), nitric acid (HNO3), nitrous oxide (N2O) ozone (O3), methane (CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO).





As you can see, CO2 makes a large contribution to the total effect.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



What's the difference between radiation and back radiation?


----------



## Wuwei (May 18, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Energy exchange is always a gross one way transfer...


Can you cite a source that demonstrates how EM radiation from a colder object cannot strike a hotter object?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Energy exchange is always a gross one way transfer...
> ...



He'll explain, it simply isn't emitted toward the warmer object.
Even if the warmer object is millions of light years away.........


----------



## IanC (May 18, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




Dude!!!! The missing hotspot is MY topic!

It's proof that the climate models aren't working right. Why do you want ME to find it?

I follow the science. The parts of AGW that are supported I believe in. The mistakes and exaggerations I scoff at. You seem to disagree with a lot of things regardless of the evidence. As if it was a popularity contest rather than a complicated problem to decipher.


----------



## IanC (May 18, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




I believe that all objects emit radiation proportional to their temperature.

The atmosphere is an object with a temperature greater than zero degrees Kelvin. 

Therefore I believe that the atmosphere is sending radiation back to the surface.


----------



## SSDD (May 19, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I don't need to explain the underlying mechanism for why energy only moves from warm to cool any more than I need to explain the underlying mechanism for gravity or any of the other natural laws for which we remain clueless as to the underlying mechanism...that every observation ever made supports my position and no observation ever made supports yours is enough.


----------



## SSDD (May 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> Wrong:    *Evans 2006*
> Here is the brief version of the paper's abstract.  There is an extended version at the link. The full paper may be read at  https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf
> 
> The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.
> ...



It is hard to not notice that they omitted H2O which renders the rest as tiny bit players hardly worth noting at all...That's the nature of climate pseudoscience....never mention the larger picture because it renders all your handwaving panic to nothing more than comic relief.


----------



## SSDD (May 19, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Energy exchange is always a gross one way transfer...
> ...



Nothing more than the second law of thermodynamics....  Second Law of Thermodynamics: 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.


----------



## SSDD (May 19, 2016)

IanC said:


> Dude!!!! The missing hotspot is MY topic!
> 
> It's proof that the climate models aren't working right. Why do you want ME to find it?
> 
> I follow the science. The parts of AGW that are supported I believe in. The mistakes and exaggerations I scoff at. You seem to disagree with a lot of things regardless of the evidence. As if it was a popularity contest rather than a complicated problem to decipher.



The reason the models aren't working properly is that the physics upon which the models are based are flawed....aerospace models tend to model reality quite well and produce accurate predictions...same for hydroelectric models, etc. etc. which are based upon a clear understanding of the physics involved....the climate models fail because they are based on a flawed understanding of physics...the very understanding you believe...backradiation and other such nonsense....if that were happening, there would indeed be a tropospheric hot spot that increased in temperature as CO2 increased...not happening because there is no back radiation...


----------



## SSDD (May 19, 2016)

IanC said:


> I believe that all objects emit radiation proportional to their temperature.



At 0 degrees K in a vacuum...



IanC said:


> Therefore I believe that the atmosphere is sending radiation back to the surface.



You believe...you believe...they believe....wackos believe...physics isn't really a field founded on belief...is it?  Belief is for religion,..not science.


----------



## Wuwei (May 19, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


It is well known that radiation can be exchanged by bodies at any temperature and the net energy is from the hotter to the colder. There is nothing to impede that. I asked you to cite a source that radiation is one way. I can cite many sources that radiation is two way.


----------



## Wuwei (May 19, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


You said "we remain clueless". What you mean is that *you *remain clueless.  So being clueless, you make up stuff that every scientist knows is wrong.


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Billy, I can't figure out why they don't believe in AGW and yet believe in back radiation.  THAT IS THE ONLY WAY AGW could be real.  It isn't we know, but for them it is the only way.  And I laugh cause they tell me their magic IR doesn't have heat and it's just energy and then tell how hot it is with a IR thermometer.  DOH!!!!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*
I don't need to explain the underlying mechanism for why energy only moves from warm to cool
*
That's good, because explaining your faulty belief would be difficult, even if you weren't such a moron.


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



*What's the difference between radiation and back radiation*?

exactly!!!!  Thanks for finally agreeing you can't prove it.


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


and yet, nothing yet from you on cool moving to warm.  Interesting.........


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Energy exchange is always a gross one way transfer...
> ...


can you cite a source that shows it does?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



*Billy, I can't figure out why they don't believe in AGW and yet believe in back radiation.*

Because it's possible to understand actual physics without believing we must cripple our economy by eliminating fossil fuels and wasting trillions on unreliable "green energy".


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



What is "cool"? Why do you think it moves?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Nice link.
Check it out: One approach to the definition of temperature is to consider three objects, say blocks of copper, iron and alumninum which are in contact such that they come to thermal equilibrium. By equilibrium we mean that they are no longer transferring any *net energy* to each other.

It's fun when your links prove your idiocy.


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


where is cool to warm exercise?


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I don't.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



???


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


and?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



And I can't translate your question into English.


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


oh well.  I guess you still can't prove cold moves to warm then.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Cold isn't a thing.


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


sure it is.  it wouldn't be temperature if it didn't.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Cold is a temperature?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


One is of solar origin.. One is of black body..  The wavelength tells the tale for the most part, but the gases in question, in our atmosphere, overlap output wave lengths of BBR (Black Body Radiation). 

I assume your calling BBR "back radiation"  

Please point me to the paper which shows your magical 'back radiation'.  BBR must first be radiated by the earths black body. So you know what is being radiated from the earth, absorbed by the gases, and re-emitted back towards the earths surface... And how it affects the earths energy balance...  Riggggggggthhhhhhhhhh


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> Wrong:    *Evans 2006*
> Here is the brief version of the paper's abstract.  There is an extended version at the link. The full paper may be read at  https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf
> 
> The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.
> ...



You forgot water vapor...  you know the thing that renders your graph above nothing but minuscule crap...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


*
One is of solar origin.. One is of black body..
*
Back radiation is any that doesn't come from the sun?

*I assume your calling BBR "back radiation"* 

I'm interested in your definition.

*BBR must first be radiated by the earths black body.*

The Earth emits, right?

*absorbed by the gases*

Gases can absorb energy, right?
They aren't limited to energy from the sun, right?

*and re-emitted back towards the earths surface*

When gases emit, they aren't limited to any particular direction, right?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


CAGW requires that radiation from the earths surface is kept from escaping. (hence the term "back radiation") While it is true that gases can stop energy from hitting the earth they radiate it in all directions and the potential for any of it to return to earth is near zero unless it is very near surface (3 -5 meters).  BBR at night shows that CO2 is incapable of heat retention as shown in deserts which are 120 deg F in the day and within three hours of sun set near freezing.  The CO2 level is nearly the same as all other places on earth, why doesn't it magically retain the heat? Because it cant.  Now add 30-40% humidity (water vapor) and that retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation but due to the mass weight of the air has doubled taking longer for the heat to rise and escape at TOA .

The simple physics of our atmosphere lays the CAGW meme waste.. The math doesn't add up and this is why every model fails..


----------



## Old Rocks (May 19, 2016)

LOL


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*CAGW requires*

I'm not interested in the liberal push to waste trillions on "green energy" while punishing carbon.
I'm interested in the discussion of the physics.

*that radiation **from the earths surface** is kept from escaping
*
Good, let's that about that.

*While it is true that gases can stop energy from hitting the earth*

We were talking about energy emitted from the Earth's surface.

*they radiate it in all directions and the potential for any of it to return to earth is near zero unless it is very near surface (3 -5 meters).* 

Do you feel an outgoing IR photon has a longer path than a surface bound IR photon?

*BBR at night shows that CO2 is incapable of heat retention as shown in deserts which are 120 deg F in the day and within three hours of sun set near freezing.* 

Do you think the wide temperature swing is proof that CO2 isn't a GHG?

*Now add 30-40% humidity (water vapor) and that retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation but due to the mass weight of the air has doubled taking longer for the heat to rise and escape at TOA .
*
Why does the mass slow the IR photons?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



A basic tent of physics is, the mass of an object is directly related to its energy storage potential.  

A dry atmosphere has little mass, while a wet atmosphere has much greater mass. IN a desert this low mass allows rapid escape of LWIR.  IN a wet atmosphere the LWIR is ABSORBED by water and the slower rate of convection rise (vs direct LWIR photo escape) slows the rate of heat loss in the atmosphere.  

From observations we can say that CO2 has little to nothing to do with the process.  The lack of a mid tropospheric hot spot shows that CO2 is NOT making the process take longer, which would result in an area of increased heat and water vapor.

WE know that water vapor (molecules) consumes most of its LWIR photons in its excited state to heat. Thus most of its absorbed LWIR photons are not re-emitted until it hits TOA and then emits at a much longer wave length which CO2 can not receive or re-emit.

'back radiation' is a poor term designed to deflect from and cloud basic provable, observable, measurable, science. Not only can you not prove its origin, you cant define it or model it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*A basic tent of physics is, the mass of an object is directly related to its energy storage potential.* 

But you said......"*retention of heat doubles, not because of back radiation"
*
Is the water vapor somehow retaining heat without absorbing IR photons from the surface?

*IN a wet atmosphere the LWIR is ABSORBED by water
*
Great. Now when this water vapor emits a photon, in which direction will it travel?

*From observations we can say that CO2 has little to nothing to do with the process.* 

Why? Because it doesn't absorb photons, can't absorb photons, or it won't re-emit or won't re-emit toward the ground or it does emit toward the ground but somehow the photons never reach the ground?

*WE know that water vapor (molecules) consumes most of its LWIR photons in its excited state to heat. Thus most of its absorbed LWIR photons are not re-emitted until it hits TOA
*
Instead of a fraction of a second for an IR photon to exit the atmosphere, it heats water vapor and the water vapor has to travel to the TOA before it releases a photon? How long does that take? Days, weeks, months?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Residency time is in minuets to hours. It is dependent on speed of air circulation and cloud boundary height.   Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*Residency time is in minuets to hours.*

Water near the ground absorbs a photon and travels to the TOA in minutes?
I don't believe that.

*Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets
*
In which direction can the photon travel?


----------



## IanC (May 20, 2016)

Gotta love the idiocy.

Billybob says a dry atmosphere has little mass, while a wet one has more.

Hahahahahaha. Another blowhard with zero understanding of the most basic tenets of physics.

Convection only works because wet air is lighter than dry air.


----------



## IanC (May 20, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Residency time is in minuets to hours. It is dependent on speed of air circulation and cloud boundary height.   Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets.




This bullshit is soooooooo funny!

Evaporation to cloud formation only takes minutes to hours? Water vapour collects and holds photons until it condenses? Hahahaha. 

Notice how he likes to put in terms like 'residency time' to act as if he knew what he was talking about? Sheer Cliff Clavin bafflegab. Hilarious!


----------



## jc456 (May 20, 2016)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Residency time is in minuets to hours. It is dependent on speed of air circulation and cloud boundary height.   Water vapor only releases its photons when the vapor re-nucleates and forms droplets.
> ...


I've watched thunderheads explode upward and they do it rather quickly. hmmmmmmm


----------



## Wuwei (May 20, 2016)

Here comes JC to rescue Billy Bob. Two of a kind.


----------



## IanC (May 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




What percentage of the water cycle is done by thunderstorms?

BTW, I agree with you. I think thunderstorms are an important air conditioner, especially in the tropics. They remove massive amounts or energy from the surface while increasing the local albedo. Many orders of magnitude more efficient than radiation. That is why ocean water seldom gets above ~30C.


----------



## jc456 (May 20, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Here comes JC to rescue Billy Bob. Two of a kind.


So you've never witnessed a thunderhead blowing upward?  Wow, you've missed one beautiful sight. I feel bad for you.


----------



## jc456 (May 20, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


*From Wkipedia,

"Cumulonimbus*, from the Latin cumulus ("heap") and nimbus ("rainstorm", "storm cloud"), is a dense towering vertical cloud [1] associated with thunderstorms and atmospheric instability, _*forming from water vapor*_ carried by powerful upward air currents. If observed during a storm, these clouds may be referred to as thunderheads. Cumulonimbus can form alone, in clusters, or along cold front squall lines."


----------



## IanC (May 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Do you consider that a direct answer to my direct question?

Billyboob said water vapour cycles in minutes to hours. I said that was ridiculous.

You said thunderstorms move air and water vapour quickly and I agreed. 

The question is how much of the day-to-day water cycle is done by thunderstorms? 1%? 50%, 100%?

What are the usual precursors to a thunderstorm? Excess warmth. Once started it continues until the available warmth is exhausted.


----------



## jc456 (May 20, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


I'd say closer to 100% of the water vapor as it is building. It generally is cooler underneath as expected.


----------



## IanC (May 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




That makes no sense. At least to me.


----------



## jc456 (May 20, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


you asked the question.  I answered 100% what is so hard for you to understand?


----------



## mamooth (May 20, 2016)

Given how good the models have been so far, it makes sense to trust them to be as good in the future.

Not totally accurate, of course. The average model predictions are currently lower than actual temps, but that's an El Nino effect.

Models

Note that NASA LOTI underestimates the SAT index a bit, which is what models output, so that temp line is actually a bit low.

And the point is the models have been very good, and deniers always fudge and misrepresent the data about that. "The models are wrong!" is their sacred scripture, and they don't take kindly to heretics.


----------



## IanC (May 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



100% of the water cycle is thunderstorms? Get a grip. Why do you even respond?


----------



## jc456 (May 20, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


so you don't think that all the water vapor in that area of the atmosphere does not move upward then?  Really.  So what is the percentage?


----------



## easyt65 (May 20, 2016)

2 words: 'Hockey Stick'.

Should have been called, "Horse Hockey".

'Nuff said.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You forget the initial absorption at ground level. Then re-emitted to the atmosphere, at longer black body wavelengths, where it is either cascaded through certain molecules and out to space, Absorbed by others and then rises through the atmosphere as heated water and is then released to space, or is re-emitted towards the earth going back through the wall of molecules that would absorb and re-emit back towards space.   The amount of energy that is actually reabsorbed by the ground is near zero during the day and negative at night.

Above about 3-5 meters the chances of photons reaching the ground in the LWIR wavelengths is near zero. At top of cloud boundary where water re-nucleates and LWIR is released those photons have zero chance at hitting the earths surface due to water vapor and clouds.

The range of residency time is from near zero when in the photon state and 3-5 hours ( time it takes water to rise to 30,000 feet through the air coulomb) in the heat state.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 20, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



If it so ridicules Ian, why don't you tell me the difference between air at 10% humidity, 30% humidity, 50% humidity, at sea level, under light breeze, Rise time of 25,000 feet ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*You forget the initial absorption at ground level*

No I didn't. Not even once.

*Then re-emitted to the atmosphere, at longer black body wavelengths, where it is either cascaded through certain molecules and out to space,*

Straight out to space?
Or does some of the energy happen to be directed downward at any point during this process?

*Absorbed by others and then rises through the atmosphere as heated water and is then released to space,*

Why only to space?

*The amount of energy that is actually reabsorbed by the ground is near zero during the day and negative at night
*
Why? Magic energy shield at ground level?

*Above about 3-5 meters the chances of photons reaching the ground in the LWIR wavelengths is near zero.
*
Why?


----------



## IanC (May 20, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Which kind of humidity? And why is it ridiculing me?


----------



## IanC (May 20, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




There is actually some wheat in all that chaff. Unfortunately how can people tell which is which?

You are correct to say that most of the GHG reactive IR is absorbed within metres of the surface.

You are incorrect to say that all the latent heat in clouds is absorbed before it hits the surface. The IR that can freely escape through the atmospheric window can also freely return to the surface from the clouds.

Even if you only bullshit half the time, it's still all bullshit because there is no way to tell what's true and what is not.

You should stick to political statements where it doesn't matter if it's true.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No, there is no magic shield. What there is however is the absorptive properties of the surface and the fact that atmosphere above it is cooler. Warming caused by the cooler can not happen without energy use.

Which leads us to your last question about why only 3-5 meters above the earth..? The word is CONDUCTION. As air rolls in this lower section of the atmosphere its direct contact and radiateive flow is to the cooler atmosphere.

The AGW hypothesis is that CO2  trapping LWIR is fully responsible for the warming of the near surface atmosphere. Yet they ignore the very basics of physics and natural process that fully explains the warming that we have seen.

The absence of a mid tropospheric hot spot is evidence that CO2 is not downward radiating (actually any direction) enough to create heat build up in water vapor. The only potential heat increase is near surface where it directly affects the ground during the day.

Lets look at why anything above 5 meters has a very low probability of affecting the surface. Look at the deserts at night. They have virtually the same levels of CO2 as the rest of the planet yet at night, just after dusk, as the ground is radiating at its greatest, CO2 it is  incapable of retaining the heat.(*re-emitted downward radiation is insufficient to warm the ground or the atmosphere*) It releases heat at a rate 3 times faster than an atmosphere of 30% humidity because LWIR is not stopped or slowed by CO2 alone in our open atmosphere. Now apply this observed, empirical evidence principal to the rest of the world.

IF a photon is released towards the ground and it is intercepted by another molecule does that molecule have to re-emit it back towards ground or can it emit it towards space? As the altitude of the molecule grows from the ground the chances a photon can be re-emitted towards the ground become less and less. The laws of probability become near zero at just five meters at levels of 1000ppm. At our current level of 400ppm its less than that.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2016)

IanC said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


That's the beauty of science, I am entitled to my perceptions as long as I can prove them by empirical evidence. Something I can do and most alarmists can not.. I can call many of the things you post bull shit and pseudoscience.....  I can also say why...

Tell me how you measured 'back radiation', how you identified which molecule it came from and how it affected the water column...


----------



## Crick (May 21, 2016)

I got one for you Billy Boy.  How do you get water vapor to the ToA?  For starters (and finishers) how does it get past the Tropopause, where Wikipedia says "Going upward from the surface, it is the point where air ceases to cool with height, and becomes almost *completely dry*"?

And while we're in the upper atmosphere, is there anything here that would prevent CO2 from spreading to this point and even further up?  No?  That's what I thought.  So is water vapor the dominant greehouse gas above the tropopause?  No, it is not.  So why have we heard you, the purported atmospheric physicist, repeatedly talk about water vapor emitting photons to space at the ToA?  Huh?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


*
Warming caused by the cooler can not happen without energy use.
*
We aren't talking about that, we're talking about matter above 0K radiating in all directions.

*Which leads us to your last question about why only 3-5 meters above the earth..? The word is CONDUCTION.*

Again, we aren't talking about that, we're talking about matter above 0K radiating in all directions.

*Look at the deserts at night. They have virtually the same levels of CO2 as the rest of the planet yet at night, just after dusk, as the ground is radiating at its greatest, CO2 it is  incapable of retaining the heat.*

How fast does the ground radiate on the Moon when the Sun sets?

*It releases heat at a rate 3 times faster than an atmosphere of 30% humidity because LWIR is not stopped or slowed by CO2 alone in our open atmosphere.*

Who ever claimed it is CO2 alone? How can the ground radiate faster in the dry air? Is the dry air colder?

*IF a photon is released towards the ground and it is intercepted by another molecule does that molecule have to re-emit it back towards ground or can it emit it towards space?
*
It can be re-emitted in any direction. It can even emit a photon that actually hits the ground, even if the ground is warmer than the molecule that emitted it.

*As the altitude of the molecule grows from the ground the chances a photon can be re-emitted towards the ground become less and less.*

Can you explain further?

*The laws of probability become near zero at just five meters at levels of 1000ppm.*

Near 0% chance that a photon can be emitted downward? Seems unlikely, but please, expound.


----------



## Crick (May 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> *As the altitude of the molecule grows from the ground the chances a photon can be re-emitted towards the ground become less and less.*





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Can you explain further?



*


Billy_Bob said:



			The laws of probability become near zero at just five meters at levels of 1000 ppm.
		
Click to expand...

*


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Near 0% chance that a photon can be emitted downward? Seems unlikely, but please, expound.



Billy Bob, you seem to be confused here as to the difference between TO THE GROUND and TOWARDS THE GROUND.  At any point in it's travels, the directional odds of photon emission from a gas molecule are precisely equal in all directions.  If we were at, say geosynchronous orbit we might say there's a reduction in the odds because the Earth itself subtends less of our view.  But within the atmophere, there is very, very little drop in the geometric probabilities.

Your argument here is blatant nonsense.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2016)

Laws of probability - random distribution

A molecule can emit in a range of 360x360

That same molecule at 5 meters can radiate towards another round object (earth) 80x80







The calculations are a bit more complex than above but this photo kind of gives you a glimpse of how it is derived.  As height increases the area of emittance where it could possibly contact earths surface diminishes. Then we add in how many other molecules it will encounter and their heights...  The numbers become astronomically high that a surface emitted and then atmosphere re-emitted photon will actually return to earth.


----------



## Crick (May 21, 2016)

Still blatant nonsense.  The horizon at 5 meters altitude is 8 ,000 meters.  Thus our down angle is atan(5/8000) = 0.036 degrees.  Thus the odds of striking the Earth from a random emission is 179.928/180.072 = 0.99920032:1

You are a fucking idiot.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



All matter radiates in all directions above O deg Kelvin. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute, what does that potential energy do?  What is it capable of? Can our output of CO2 influence what it does? 

In my previous posts I have shown that it is essentially meaningless.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> Still blatant nonsense.  The horizon at 5 meters altitude is 8 ,000 meters.  Thus our down angle is atan(5/8000) = 0.036 degrees.  Thus the odds of striking the Earth from a random emission is 179.928/180.072 = 0.99920032:1
> 
> You are a fucking idiot.



Your LA LA LA LA  is duly noted..


----------



## Crick (May 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> *The laws of probability become near zero at just five meters at levels of 1000ppm.*



I want to hear an explanation as to how the probability of a photon being emitted TOWARDS the Earth become near zero at 5 meters altitude because you have certainly not explained that.



Billy_Bob said:


> All matter radiates in all directions above O deg Kelvin. That is not in dispute.



That is excellent to hear.  I expect you to participate correcting SSDD the next time he makes such a claim.



Billy_Bob said:


> What is in dispute, what does that potential energy do?



Photon do not possess potential energy.  They are all kinetic.



Billy_Bob said:


> What is it capable of? Can our output of CO2 influence what it does?



That would depend on its frequency, but basically they can increase the energy state of a receiving molecule. The amount of energy that may be contained in a single photon, since there is no limit to the frequency it can exhibit, is limited only by it's collapse into a black hole once it has gathered around 2GJ of energy. 

Photons emitted by CO2 can most certainly cause warming.  And it would be nice to see you address your error concerning water vapor at the ToA.



Billy_Bob said:


> In my previous posts I have shown that it is essentially meaningless.



You've shown no such thing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*What is in dispute, what does that potential energy do? What is it capable of?
*
It's certainly capable of hitting a warmer object.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Laws of probability - random distribution
> 
> A molecule can emit in a range of 360x360
> 
> ...



*As height increases the area of emittance where it could possibly contact earths surface diminishes.*

Diminishes, slowly, yet still far, far higher than 0% chance. You see your error now?


----------



## Crick (May 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Still blatant nonsense.  The horizon at 5 meters altitude is 8 ,000 meters.  Thus our down angle is atan(5/8000) = 0.036 degrees.  Thus the odds of striking the Earth from a random emission is 179.928/180.072 = 0.99920032:1
> ...



You're the one with your fingers stuck in your monkey ears.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



But it does nothing to the warmer object.. It can not because it can not overcome the law of thermal travel;  Hotter object to Cooler Object. The shear numbers of photons overwhelms what little might return from CO2 or other items radiating in our atmosphere.

400ppm radiating simply can not heat up a warmer object because it, itself is cooler. Physical laws apply.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Laws of probability - random distribution
> ...



But your missing the other matter in our atmosphere... as that height increases, that other mass increases also..


----------



## numan (May 21, 2016)

'
I know how difficult it is for most people to understand global heating and the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect. Over the years, I went from fairly easy acceptance of the scientific research, then a period of critical uncertainty as I gained some understanding of the complexity of the problem, and then firm acceptance of anthropogenic global warming as I realized how inevitable it was under the present inputs into the global system.

It is perhaps useful to compare the situation on Earth with our so-called "sister planet", Venus, almost the same size as Earth but with an atmosphere 96.5% carbon dioxide, using the Ideal Gas Law.

Reduced to basic form, the Ideal Gas Law is expressed as:

*PV = NkT*, where

P = pressure, V = volume, N = number of particles in the volume, k = Boltzmann's Constant, and T = temperature.

For Earth, the average pressure at planetary surface is *101.3 kilopascals* or *101 300 Joules of energy per cubic metre*.

The surface *density* of the atmosphere is *1.225 kilogrammes per cubic metre*. The atmosphere consists mainly of diatomic molecules of nitrogen and oxygen -- 80% nitrogen and 20% oxygen.

The average molecular mass of these is 28.8 -- giving the average molecule a mass of *4.820 x 10^-26 kg*. Dividing *1.225 kg* by *4.820 kg*, one arrives at *2.541 x 10^25 particles per cubic metre*.

Boltzmann's Constant = *1.381 x 10^-23 Joules per degree Kelvin*.

Dividing *PV* by the particle number and Boltzmann's Constant, we get a temperature of *288 K*, or in more familiar terms, *15 degrees Celsius*.

This is very close to the measured surface temperature of the Earth, but it is not precise. Actually, in the absence of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, the temperature would be at or below the freezing point of water, and the oceans would be a solid block of ice.

The main problem in using the Ideal Gas Law for the Earth is that the Earth is not a good approximation to a thermodynamic ideal "black body".

The situation is much different when one turns to the planet Venus, which much more closely approximates an ideal black body. Its atmosphere is quite uniform and well mixed, and its cloud cover is also uniform. Venus has the highest albedo (reflectivity) of all the planets in the Solar System -- it immediately reflects fully 70% of all the solar radiation which it receives. Only 30% of solar radiation contributes to warming the planet. The situation is exactly reversed for the planet Earth. The Earth has an albedo of only 30%, and 70% of incident radiation is absorbed by our planet. It is important to remember these facts.

The surface pressure of Venus is 92 times that of the Earth -- *a pressure of 9 319 600 Joules per cubic metre*.

The surface *density* of the Venusian atmosphere is 53 times that of the Earth -- *65 kg per cubic metre*. Dividing 65 kg by the mass of a carbon dioxide -- *7.310 x 10^-26 kg* -- gives the particle number per cubic metre: *8.90 x 10^26*.

Again, dividing *PV* by the particle number and Boltzmann's Constant gives a temperature of *482.9 K*, or 209.7 degrees Celsius.

*That is more than 300 K less than the measured surface temperature of 787 K (514 degrees Celsius).*

The reason Venus is so much hotter than one would calculate by pressure alone *IS BECAUSE OF THE CARBON DIOXIDE GREENHOUSE EFFECT!!!*

Naturally, the first thing a global warming Denialist would think of is that Venus is a third closer to the Sun than the Earth is, receiving a little more than twice the radiation as the Earth does, and so would of course be warmer.
*This plausible chain of thought is totally fallacious!!*

Remember, Venus has an albedo of 70%!

Believe it or not, Venus absorbs less radiation from the Sun than the Earth does!
.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*But it does nothing to the warmer object..*

How does a photon do nothing to any object it hits?

*It can not because it can not overcome the law of thermal travel;* 

Law of thermal travel? Sounds like something you made up.

*Hotter object to Cooler Object.*

We aren't talking about objects, we're talking about photons.

*The shear numbers of photons overwhelms what little might return from CO2*

Overwhelms? What does that mean? At least you're admitting photons from CO2 can return to the surface.

*400ppm radiating simply can not heat up a warmer object because it, itself is cooler.*

Can't heat it up? Every photon that hits adds heat to an object, warmer or not.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*But your missing the other matter in our atmosphere...*

How does "the other matter" excuse your confusion about the direction photons travel when emitted?

I mean 0% is an enormous error, you have to admit.


----------



## Wuwei (May 21, 2016)

This point - counterpoint dialog between Tod and Billy Bob is entertaining. Like watching a snake eat a mouse. Will the Law of Thermal Travel bring Tod to his knees? I sit on the edge of my seat wondering who is going to get the upper hand.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


So you believe in magical photons which deny the laws of thermal dynamics..?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C.  warming per doubling... Then the earth didn't comply with their directive and less than 0.03 hundredths of a degree could even remotely be attributed to CO2 'back radiation'. So they lowered their estimates to 1 deg C per doubling and the pause happened throwing this prediction into the garbage.. now they are toying with 0.3 to 0.6 deg C per doubling .. Yet the empirical evidence says that we are at a zero influence attribution to CO2 today...

SO either your photons are having little to no effect or the water cycle on earth is laying the runaway theory falsified...  To date no one has done the science to determine which it is.. Historical evidence suggests that CO2 and its 'back radiation' have had no effect in the past. So i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Are photons being emitted?  Yes...  Can they strike cooler objects? Yes.. It is the effect on the cooler matter that no one has proven through empirical, observed evidence..  You would have some magical photons that can defy thermal dynamics and heat transfer laws to have an impact.


----------



## mamooth (May 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> So you believe in magical photons which deny the laws of thermal dynamics..?



Ah, "thermal dynamics" again.

This is our doctoral student.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > So you believe in magical photons which deny the laws of thermal dynamics..?
> ...


And this is one of our resident ass clowns...


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2016)

numan said:


> '
> I know how difficult it is for most people to understand global heating and the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect. Over the years, I went from fairly easy acceptance of the scientific research, then a period of critical uncertainty as I gained some understanding of the complexity of the problem, and then firm acceptance of anthropogenic global warming as I realized how inevitable it was under the present inputs into the global system.
> 
> It is perhaps useful to compare the situation on Earth with our so-called "sister planet", Venus, almost the same size as Earth but with an atmosphere 96.5% carbon dioxide, using the Ideal Gas Law.
> ...



You make one very wild assumption.  One you can never hope to prove..  That you use the word "denialist" tips your hat at having nothing in the realm of empirical evidence.   You have a handle on the gas laws but you lack any credibility on what CO2 does in either atmosphere.  You have conjecture and that is all. More importantly, your models, that you rely on as if they were empirical evidence, fail all predictive attempts with the real world showing us you don't know how or why the system works. 

Earths albedo varies with season and water content.  Venus is 210 deg C in the sun and -200 deg C in the night.. Your magical CO2 cant seem to hold the heat in...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


*
So you believe in magical photons which deny the laws of thermal dynamics..?
*
Can you post the "laws of thermal dynamics" and explain how they apply to photons?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


*
Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling...
*
I already told you I'm not interested in liberal lies about AGW, I just want to discuss the physics.

*SO either your photons are having little to no effect
*
Great, lets talk about photons.
*
i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.
*
Since we aren't talking about objects in contact with each other, but photons traveling freely in all directions, your confused understanding of thermodynamics and "smart photons" doesn't apply.


----------



## Crick (May 22, 2016)

It's THERMODYNAMICS, not THERMAL DYNAMICS, Billy Boy.  That rather firmly indicates you've never taken a class in the subject.  But then, so does your IDIOTIC adaptation of SSDD's contention that cold doesn't radiate towards warm.

Instrumental estimates of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity from AR4






10.5 Quantifying the Range of Climate Change Projections - AR4 WGI Chapter 10: Global Climate Projections
*Quantifying the Range of Climate Change Projections*

*Box 10.2: Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity*
The likely range[1] for equilibrium climate sensitivity was estimated in the *TAR* [_Third Assessment Report_] (Technical Summary, Section F.3; Cubasch et al., 2001) to be *1.5°C to 4.5°C*.* The range was the same as* in an early report of the National Research Council (Charney, 1979), and* the two previous IPCC assessment reports* (Mitchell et al., 1990; Kattenberg et al., 1996). These estimates were expert assessments largely based on equilibrium climate sensitivities simulated by atmospheric GCMs coupled to non-dynamic slab oceans. The mean ±1 standard deviation values from these models were 3.8°C ± 0.78°C in the SAR (17 models), 3.5°C ± 0.92°C in the TAR (15 models) and in this assessment 3.26°C ± 0.69°C (18 models).

So, you're claimed numbers are bullshit.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

As I understand the laws of EM wave propagation, it tells me that those photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength carrying greater power. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength carrying less power. Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer.  The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler by factors of 10^6 order in energy held.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object one needs to simply look at the power differential of the waves being propagated. The law of thermal dynamics and why a cooler object can not warm a hotter object, in very simple terms.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> It's THERMODYNAMICS, not THERMAL DYNAMICS, Billy Boy.  That rather firmly indicates you've never taken a class in the subject.  But then, so does your IDIOTIC adaptation of SSDD's contention that cold doesn't radiate towards warm.
> 
> Instrumental estimates of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity from AR4
> 
> ...



Your so far out your in another ball parks left field..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


*
Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.
*
Photons from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere? They travel in random directions, sometimes toward space, sometimes toward the ground.

*photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength.
*
Yes.
*
Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer. 
*
Yes again.
*
The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler*

Yes yet a third time. I'll ignore the bad math at the end of that last sentence.
*
To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object
*
Here is where you go off the tracks.
*
The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects,
*
Again, we're talking about photons, not objects in contact.

I don't think anyone here has ever claimed that radiation from the 70 degree ground is emitted into the atmosphere, absorbed by GHGs and re-emitted to the ground, causing the ground to warm to 71 degrees.

Here is what back radiation does, it simply slows the rate of cooling. The warmer object, in this case the ground, still cools. Still emits more photons to the atmosphere than it receives back from the atmosphere.
There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics (not thermal dynamics FFS).
There is no need for the emitter, or the photon, to measure the temperature of the surroundings before deciding where, or if, to emit a photon.

The Stefan Boltzmann constant shows that energy emitted is based on the 4th power of the temperature.

So if the ground is 293K and the atmosphere is 273K, ignoring for the moment the different emissivity of each, the ground will emit about 33% more energy than the atmosphere. The ground still cools, back radiation just slows the cooling, because some energy is coming back down.

In the desert, less H20 means faster cooling because there is less energy coming back down and more escaping more quickly into space. When the Sun sets on the Moon, the lack of any back radiation, because of the lack of any atmosphere, is further evidence of the point we're trying to show you.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I contend that water vapor is what holds heat near surface not CO2. The downward radiated LWIR is from water vapor and not CO2 as shown by the increase of CO2 without a corresponding increase in temp which is why they adjust the crap out of the historical temp record in an effort to keep the lie alive. 

Were not to far apart in what we believe Todd.  "back radiation" is a poor term. We should have stuck to real scientific terms to keep everyone on the same page. But that is Climate Science and the dishonesty, misdirection, and outright lies it has breed to keep the political agenda alive.

Scientifically speaking, the area we need to concentrate on is near surface heat transfer and why it has not acted like the AGW crowd has stated it would. Why the hypothesis has failed, and what is really happening.  This can not occur until the agenda is killed dead and dissenting points of view are embraced, vetted out, and real science done.

CO2 is simply not creating the down welling LWIR they said it should... The deserts prove this, Venus proves this, the moon proves this.... WHY?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*I contend that water vapor is what holds heat near surface not CO2.*

That's fine. As long as it gets you off the
"back radiation does not exist, because I don't understand the 2nd Law" SSDD moron train...........

*"back radiation" is a poor term. We should have stuck to real scientific terms to keep everyone on the same page. But that is Climate Science and the dishonesty,
*
Fine. None of which excuses your ignorance and/or confusion.

*CO2 is simply not creating the down welling LWIR they said it should*

Their exaggeration aside, CO2 absorbs photons from the surface and sends some of them back to the surface.

Is it safe to say you now agree?
*
The deserts prove this*

Is that why the Moon cools faster than the desert at sunset, because it has zero CO2?
Is that what you're trying to prove?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The moon has no atmosphere. If it did, the moon would cool at much the same rate with or without CO2. 

CO2 back radiation is questionable as it is not seen or empirically observed in our atmosphere. The system itself has not responded to increased CO2 levels and what they expected to see. The empirical evidence suggests that CO2 is a follower of temp by about 200-800 years not a driver of it.  What we are seeing today is simply the response of warming over 200 years ago as we exited the LIA and not man caused anything.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



*The moon has no atmosphere.*

Obviously. Do you think that causes the surface to cool faster than an Earth desert? Why?
*
CO2 back radiation is questionable as it is not seen or empirically observed in our atmosphere.
*
H2O back radiation you agree with but you're still going with "photons from CO2 won't radiate downward"?


----------



## mamooth (May 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Venus is 210 deg C in the sun and -200 deg C in the night..



Venus is almost as hot on the night side as the day side during its two-month-long nights. That's because of the greenhouse effect holding in the heat, and the constant high winds circling the planet, always bringing heat from the day side to the night side.

That is, Billy was totally clueless, again. This time, it was an especially stupid screw up. CO2 freezes out at -57C at 1 atmosphere partial pressure. It would freeze out at a higher temperature under the much higher partial pressure of Venus. Billy, can you show us the frozen CO2 on the night side of Venus?

This is where now, instead of admitting to a screwup, Billy completely melts down. Prepare for the hilarity of it. (One guess, he was quoting cloud top temperatures, which have little to do with surface temperatures.)


----------



## Crick (May 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> CO2 back radiation is questionable as it is not seen or empirically observed in our atmosphere.







Spectrum of greenhouse radiation by direct observation.  Evans 2006




Billy_Bob said:


> The system itself has not responded to increased CO2 levels and what they expected to see.











Billy_Bob said:


> The empirical evidence suggests that CO2 is a follower of temp by about 200-800 years not a driver of it.  What we are seeing today is simply the response of warming over 200 years ago as we exited the LIA and not man caused anything.







Shakun et al 2014


----------



## Markle (May 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > How much is Recurrent Energy receiving in government subsidies, tax credits or whatever?
> ...



Still nothing from you, or anyone else regarding how much in taxpayer subsidies, tax credits or whatever?

*World's Largest Solar Plant Sets Itself on Fire*
*Improperly aligned mirrors redirected the sun's rays at the wrong spot.*
By Eric Limer
May 20, 2016


The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, a concentrated solar thermal in California and the world's largest solar thermal power station, suffered a small fire on one of its three boiler towers Thursday, according to the Associated Press. The fire caused the boiler tower to be shut down while firefighters ascended 300 feet to deal with the blaze, leaving the plant at one third power since another tower is already down for maintenance. 
World's Largest Solar Plant Sets Itself on Fire


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 22, 2016)

Markle said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



Human error. Happens! But either way solar is taking over our energy installation big time and most of them are doing it by the private sector. Of course, the idiot that lives in 1791 would love to stop funding energy infrastructure and live in such piss poor conditions since he hates modern civilization with a passion.


----------



## Markle (May 22, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Human error. Happens! But either way solar is taking over our energy installation big time and most of them are doing it by the private sector. Of course, the idiot that lives in 1791 would love to stop funding energy infrastructure and live in such piss poor conditions since he hates modern civilization with a passion.



Don't have a clue as to the significance of the date do you?  And still, you're proud to vividly demonstrate your ignorance.  Good for you!


----------



## Old Rocks (May 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Oh my. OK, Silly Billy, elucidate. Do you mean the atmosphere becomes denser, therefore heavier as you get further from sea level? Or do you mean that the atmosphere changes it's mix of elements as you get higher, and the heavier elements are found at the higher levels? Come on, Silly Billy, this ought to be very educational.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 22, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> This point - counterpoint dialog between Tod and Billy Bob is entertaining. Like watching a snake eat a mouse. Will the Law of Thermal Travel bring Tod to his knees? I sit on the edge of my seat wondering who is going to get the upper hand.


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (May 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> numan said:
> 
> 
> > '
> ...


Ye Gods and little fishes. Silly Billy, you pull more nonsense out of your ass than anyone on this board.

*"Earths albedo varies with season and water content.  Venus is 210 deg C in the sun and -200 deg C in the night.. Your magical CO2 cant seem to hold the heat in."*

Says Silly Billy. Here is what the facts are.

Temperature on Venus

The universe’s hottest planet, Venus, is so unbearably hot that very few things could survive on this planet. Venus’s temperature is around 460 degrees Celsius most of the time, which is about an average of 863 degrees Fahrenheit. Although Venus is very similar to Earth, in geophysical terms, it has no similarities whatsoever regarding temperature. On Venus, the temperature is set to around 460 degrees whether it is day or night at any section of the planet. The funny thing is that Venus reaches this extreme temperature even though it is not the closest planet to the sun. So, why and how does Venus get its extreme heat? The planet’s burning temperatures are greatly a result of the planet’s atmosphere. The planet’s atmosphere is made up of thick yellow clouds that cover up the planet’s surface. Similar to the moon, Venus is a plain rock. The poisonous atmosphere would instantly kill off any breathing creature that would dare enter the planet. Also, the greenhouse effect is strongest in Venus out of all the planets. This intense heat also comes from the clouds that make Venus’s surface invisible. These clouds are mostly made up of carbon dioxide, which makes a greenhouse effect that traps the Sun’s heat. Therefore, it is impossible for the planet to cool down at all. Furthermore, the fact that Venus’s temperature stays the same around the whole planet and at all times is due to the planet having very little axial tilt. Evidently, water and water vapor are almost impossible to find on Venus due to its intensely high surface temperature.


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



I am perfectly aware of what gross and net mean...energy exchange is a one way process...two way energy exchange has never been observed...in the history of the universe...


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...




Again..refer to the second law of thermodynamics...radiation is energy and energy does not move spontaneously from a low temperature object to a high temperature object...your sources are in opposition to the second law of thermodynamics...sorry, but they must be wrong..


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



No I include you as well...but feel free to prove me wrong by describing the underlying mechanism for gravity....or the underlying mechanism that drives energy exchange.....or any of the underlying mechanisms that drive any of the natural laws....but feel free to start with gravity since it is around us everywhere and easily observable...surely you can tell us about the unknown mechanism that causes gravity.


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Again..refer to the second law of thermodynamics...radiation is energy and energy does not move spontaneously from a low temperature object to a high temperature object...your sources are in opposition to the second law of thermodynamics...sorry, but they must be wrong..


We have gone through all that last December. I will copy it here.

Post 383 in this thread.
Physics and why LWIR can not warm oceans... Info for a Clueless Senator Markey and alarmists..

Energy exchange is actually a "two way street" according to every scientist that knows thermodynamics:







This is an excerpt of the original paper by Stefan. He says the same thing. You can't by any stretch of your imagination say that the subtracted form is all there is to the SB equation.


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> No I include you as well...but feel free to prove me wrong by describing the underlying mechanism for gravity....or the underlying mechanism that drives energy exchange.....or any of the underlying mechanisms that drive any of the natural laws....but feel free to start with gravity since it is around us everywhere and easily observable...surely you can tell us about the unknown mechanism that causes gravity.


That is a total digression and distraction. These things are understood. Just because you don't understand physics doesn't mean physicists don't.

OK gravity is explained by the fact that space is warped by mass and that gravitational influence is simply light and matter traveling along geodesics. That explains all sorts of phenomena such as the bending of light around gravitational objects and the deviation of the planet Mercury's perihelion, and the compensation that must go into GPS satellites.  

The underlying nature of radiation exchange is all derived from quantum electrodynamics which explains the radiation and atomic interaction as photons being the quantized medium of the electromagnetic forces. Look up Feynmann diagrams. This understanding has been measured and quantified, by many different repeatable experiments that shows a correlation between theory and experiment to one part per billion to one part per trillion.


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Photons from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere? They travel in random directions, sometimes toward space, sometimes toward the ground*

other than taking a vacation around the atmosphere what exactly is their purpose?


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Venus is 210 deg C in the sun and -200 deg C in the night..
> ...


*That's because of the greenhouse effect holding in the heat, and the constant high winds circling the planet, always bringing heat from the day side to the night side.*

It doesn't get any funnier than this right here.  Dude/ dudette, that is simply an amazing statement.  Perhaps you should reread it and then understand convection systems better.  Wow.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Photons don't need a purpose.


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 back radiation is questionable as it is not seen or empirically observed in our atmosphere.
> ...


so if all matter emits, why does some matter emit differently?  This should be amazing.


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


ah, but they do in here.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Feel free to share their purpose.

I mean besides making you look stupid(er).


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I've been waiting for all you photon moving folks to demonstrate the purpose.  why can't you?  If the hypothesis of back radiation is IR is reemitted in the atmosphere than there has to be a hot spot.  no other way around it given all of your explanations.  And yet zippo!! funny stuff gene.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Why do you feel photons need a purpose? Or a thermometer?

*If the hypothesis of back radiation is IR is reemitted in the atmosphere*

You feel the atmosphere doesn't absorb and re-emit energy? Just wow!


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


yeah, I posted it earlier for you.  Right?  or are you going to act like I didn't so that you can ask me to show that post #.  That would be typical of the exchange.  You certainly do have memory issues as the days go by.  Senior moments perhaps i guess.  not sure.

BTW, you even asked me what changed my mind. Funny.


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Again..refer to the second law of thermodynamics...radiation is energy and energy does not move spontaneously from a low temperature object to a high temperature object...your sources are in opposition to the second law of thermodynamics...sorry, but they must be wrong..
> ...



Sorry guy...false SB equation...the actual SB equation looks like this 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ..now if you would like to explain why the distributive property was applied to an equation that was already reduced...and what you think adding the distributive property does in the physical world which is being described by the actual SB equation...

The actual SB equation describes a one way energy transfer of which the power is determined by the difference between the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of the surroundings......adding the distributive property to that equation does not alter what is actually happening and applying the distributive property to the actual SB equation is just bad math..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*yeah, I posted it earlier for you.*

Yes, your stupid statements still amaze me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



*
The actual SB equation describes a one way energy transfer of which the power is determined by the difference between the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of the surroundings
*
Because....smart photons. Derp!


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > No I include you as well...but feel free to prove me wrong by describing the underlying mechanism for gravity....or the underlying mechanism that drives energy exchange.....or any of the underlying mechanisms that drive any of the natural laws....but feel free to start with gravity since it is around us everywhere and easily observable...surely you can tell us about the unknown mechanism that causes gravity.
> ...



And as suspected, you describe what gravity is, but don't even touch on the underlying mechanism, which still remains a mystery....as does the underlying mechanism for energy transfer as well...the underlying mechanism of gravity is not even a true hypothesis...gravitons are suggested but can't even be modeled in any meaningful way...  there remains a great deal that science doesn't know..and in fact, what they don't know is so much larger than what they do know that at this point, science has little clue as to what it doesn't know...

what you believe you and science know at this point is little more than stories you tell.....place holders that make a feeble attempt to explain things that happen for reasons that remain far beyond our ability to understand...

Hell...maybe you don't even know what the words underlying mechanism mean when used together...


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


more nothing I see.


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy...false SB equation...the actual SB equation looks like this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The expression of SB's law as a subtraction is just a computational convenience when the object temperature and background temperature are known. It means nothing else. 

When both temperatures are equal you are interpreting that form to mean there is no radiation between the two objects, and that is just ludicrous. They both radiate equally toward each other at the same temperature according to the SB equation.

The equation means there is a two-way radiation exchange, but a one-way net energy flow from the hotter to the colder. The subtracted form gives a net flow, not a one-way flow of energy.


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> And as suspected, you describe what gravity is, but don't even touch on the underlying mechanism, which still remains a mystery....as does the underlying mechanism for energy transfer as well...the underlying mechanism of gravity is not even a true hypothesis...gravitons are suggested but can't even be modeled in any meaningful way... there remains a great deal that science doesn't know..and in fact, what they don't know is so much larger than what they do know that at this point, science has little clue as to what it doesn't know...


The underlying mechanism of the forces in nature are all in the equations and interpretations of curved space and Feynman diagrams. That is all that physics ever was and will be. If you want anything more you will have to ask your God.

The equations and underlying interpretations are what is needed to explain any laws that are used to handle climate science. Your failure to understand the mechanisms is immaterial to a scientists understanding.


SSDD said:


> what you believe you and science know at this point is little more than stories you tell.....place holders that make a feeble attempt to explain things that happen for reasons that remain far beyond our ability to understand...
> 
> Hell...maybe you don't even know what the words underlying mechanism mean when used together...


Underlying mechanism of EM theory are understood. It is obvious that your inability to accept that comes from your anti-science stance. It is rather hypocritical for you, who is anti-science and spreads your own breed of gut-feeling stories about thermodynamics, to talk about what scientists don't understand. The equations are all that is needed. Nothing more will help in understanding how to apply them.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 23, 2016)

*Trump acknowledges climate change — at his golf course*
Source: *Politico*







The billionaire, who called global warming a hoax, warns of its dire effects in his company's application to build a sea wall. 

By Ben Schreckinger 

05/23/16 05:35 AM EDT 







A permit application for a sea wall around one of Donald Trump's golf courses explicitly names global warming as a reason to build the wall. | AP Photo 


Donald Trump says he is “not a big believer in global warming.” He has called it “a total hoax,” “bullshit” and “pseudoscience.” 

But he is also trying to build a sea wall designed to protect one of his golf courses from “global warming and its effects.” 

The New York billionaire is applying for permission to erect a coastal protection works to prevent erosion at his seaside golf resort, Trump International Golf Links & Hotel Ireland, in County Clare. 

A permit application for the wall, filed by Trump International Golf Links Ireland and reviewed by POLITICO, explicitly cites global warming and its consequences — increased erosion due to rising sea levels and extreme weather this century — as a chief justification for building the structure. 

The zoning application raises further questions about how the billionaire developer would confront a risk he has publicly minimized but that has been identified as a defining challenge of this era by world leaders, global industry and the American military. His public disavowal of climate science at the same time he moves to secure his own holdings against the effects of climate change also illustrates the conflict between his political rhetoric and the realities of running a business with seaside assets in the 21st century........................... 

Read more: *Trump acknowledges climate change — at his golf course

Read more: Trump acknowledges climate change — at his golf course*


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 23, 2016)

Even trump realizes that southern Florida is seeing sea levels raising and isn't foolish enough not to protect his property.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 23, 2016)

*The sea wall around one of Donald Trump's golf courses to protect the Golf Course for Trump against AGW Sea Rises is the ONLY FUCKING WALL VON HAIRFUCK IS GONNA Actually BUILD*


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Even trump realizes that southern Florida is seeing sea levels raising and isn't foolish enough not to protect his property.


why would he care about Florida sea levels?


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *The sea wall around one of Donald Trump's golf courses to protect the Golf Course for Trump against AGW Sea Rises is the ONLY FUCKING WALL VON HAIRFUCK IS GONNA Actually BUILD*


It's a great strategy to get a wall built.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Even trump realizes that southern Florida is seeing sea levels raising and isn't foolish enough not to protect his property.
> ...


*Florida Republican Congressman Calls for Action on Climate Change *
*21 Florida Mayors Urge Networks To Address Climate Change 
Florida climate-change concerns grow as study links flooding to rising ...
*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > *The sea wall around one of Donald Trump's golf courses to protect the Golf Course for Trump against AGW Sea Rises is the ONLY FUCKING WALL VON HAIRFUCK IS GONNA Actually BUILD*
> ...


*who is he lying to them or us .*..


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


he's conducting business as you stated in your very first post.   It's what and who he is. They won't allow the wall. So he's going after it this way.  Seems reasonable to me. Why would he care if what he wants is the wall?


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


the course is in Ireland. So why does he care about Florida?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


so he is lying to us ...LOL


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> [
> *Florida Republican Congressman Calls for Action on Climate Change *
> *21 Florida Mayors Urge Networks To Address Climate Change *
> *Florida climate-change concerns grow as study links flooding to rising ...*


the course is in Ireland. So why does he care about Florida?[/QUOTE]
Property in Fl to protect from rising AGW waters dude....


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Property in Fl to protect from rising AGW waters dude....[/QUOTE]
but the wall he wants is in Ireland.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


but the wall he wants is in Ireland.[/QUOTE]
Waters are rising there also..its AGW ...


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


Waters are rising there also..its AGW ...[/QUOTE]
well since the water isn't rising anywhere, one knows it is his way of getting a wall built where one isn't allowed.  Still don't understand why Florida has anything to do with Ireland, but it's you so i get it.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> well since the water isn't rising anywhere, one knows it is his way of getting a wall built where one isn't allowed.  Still don't understand why Florida has anything to do with Ireland, but it's you so i get it.


go to a world map
locate Florida
locate Ireland
notice the Atlantic Ocean 
notice it touches on both Ireland and Florida
Ireland and Florida to be affected by AGW
Trump recognizes that AGW is real
any questions ?


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> The expression of SB's law as a subtraction is just a computational convenience when the object temperature and background temperature are known. It means nothing else.



Right....do you have any idea how stupid you sound...computational convenience....we are talking about a physical law here....no two way energy transfer has ever b been observed



Wuwei said:


> When both temperatures are equal you are interpreting that form to mean there is no radiation between the two objects, and that is just ludicrous. They both radiate equally toward each other at the same temperature according to the SB equation.



Set T1 and T2 to the same number...what does that make P in an equation describing a one way energy flow?  I am sure that SB were bright enough to have formulated an equation describing a two way net energy flow had that been what they intended...alas, that isn't what they left us.  The SB law isn't about net energy exchanges...it is a fabrication by those who need magical two way energy flow to support their magical greenhouse hypothesis.


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> The underlying mechanism of the forces in nature are all in the equations and interpretations of curved space and Feynman diagrams. That is all that physics ever was and will be. If you want anything more you will have to ask your God.



Sorry...but they aren't...I am sure that you believe they are.....but that is just you fooling yourself.



Wuwei said:


> Underlying mechanism of EM theory are understood. It is obvious that your inability to accept that comes from your anti-science stance. It is rather hypocritical for you, who is anti-science and spreads your own breed of gut-feeling stories about thermodynamics, to talk about what scientists don't understand. The equations are all that is needed. Nothing more will help in understanding how to apply them.



No they aren't...as evidenced by the wave/particle duality explanation for light...you think light actually is both particle and wave?  Are you that naive?  The fact that you believe that we understand the underlying mechanisms that drive the universe shows very well how much you don't know.


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > well since the water isn't rising anywhere, one knows it is his way of getting a wall built where one isn't allowed.  Still don't understand why Florida has anything to do with Ireland, but it's you so i get it.
> ...


no Trump recognizes he will lose coastline and he wants a wall.  That's it. Ireland doesn't allow walls on the ocean.  his intent is quite clear use AGW to get a wall.  It's what I already said.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Trump acknowledges climate change — at his golf course*
> Source: *Politico*
> 
> 
> ...



Paying for it himself, not whining for the government to pay for it.

Works for me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The expression of SB's law as a subtraction is just a computational convenience when the object temperature and background temperature are known. It means nothing else.
> ...



*....no two way energy transfer has ever b been observed*

Derp


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> no Trump recognizes he will lose coastline and he wants a wall.  That's it. Ireland doesn't allow walls on the ocean.  his intent is quite clear use AGW to get a wall.  It's what I already said.


so you are saying he is lying to them not to us ? *so you agree Trump is a liar...thanks*


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > no Trump recognizes he will lose coastline and he wants a wall.  That's it. Ireland doesn't allow walls on the ocean.  his intent is quite clear use AGW to get a wall.  It's what I already said.
> ...


if that's what you want to call it.  I'd say more he's using an available option and using his creativeness to get it.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Like when he owes money and screws the people who lent him money with strategic bankruptcies....very admirable LOL


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


exactly, wow you catch on.  he has always used the resources available.  It's what makes him a genius. There called laws and courts rule on them.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> exactly, wow you catch on.  he has always used the resources available.  It's what makes him a genius. There called laws and courts rule on them.


Bernie Maddoff used similar methods......only suckers  go for  that stuff lol...suckers LOL


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > exactly, wow you catch on.  he has always used the resources available.  It's what makes him a genius. There called laws and courts rule on them.
> ...


no what he did was against the law.  big difference. If the investments/ transactions for clients had actually occurred and failed, he'd have had no issue.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Only suckers follow Donald Hairclown..he laughs at you all


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 23, 2016)

Want to know the truth about Exxon and its history of climate change denial? We drew it up for you! Learn what we're fighting for - and how you can take action - with this useful hand-drawn explainer.




#ExxonKnew, explained
Exxon and other oil companies pay the same PR firms and right wing front groups that helped tobacco companies lie about the risks of smoking.
climatetruth.actionkit.com


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Want to know the truth about Exxon and its history of climate change denial? We drew it up for you! Learn what we're fighting for - and how you can take action - with this useful hand-drawn explainer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, no, explain how you think it's illegal?


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2016)

Wuwei said:
			
		

> The expression of SB's law as a subtraction is just a computational convenience when the object temperature and background temperature are known. It means nothing else.





SSDD said:


> Right....do you have any idea how stupid you sound...computational convenience....we are talking about a physical law here....no two way energy transfer has ever b been observed


I gave you quotes from Plank and you are saying he sounds stupid. You are saying all physicists for the last 150 years sound stupid. That is not a very convincing argument.


SSDD said:


> Set T1 and T2 to the same number...what does that make P in an equation describing a one way energy flow? I am sure that SB were bright enough to have formulated an equation describing a two way net energy flow had that been what they intended...alas, that isn't what they left us. The SB law isn't about net energy exchanges...it is a fabrication by those who need magical two way energy flow to support their magical greenhouse hypothesis.


So you think all physicists for the past 150 years have fabricated radiation exchange. You are essentially saying that two objects at the same temperature do not radiate at all to each other. Here are some references that totally disagree with you. This is not an argument between you and me. It is an argument between you and hundreds of thousand scientists over the last 150 years. I'm sorry, but you loose out. You can go ahead and invent your own physics, but you are left with no argument except to call them all fools.

Wilhelm Wien Nobel Prize speech.
Wilhelm Wien - Nobel Lecture: On the Laws of Thermal Radiation
"[Equilibrium state] ... taken as a whole for many atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."

Optical Design Fundamentals for Infrared Systems Max J. Riedl
“at thermal equilibrium, the power _radiated _by an object must be equal to the power _absorbed_.”

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivityGustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power _radiated _by an object must be equal to the power _absorbed_.”

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibriumIn physics, radiative equilibrium is the condition where a steady state system is in dynamic equilibrium, with equal incoming and outgoing radiative heat flux

Thermal equilibrium | Open Access articles | Open Access journals | Conference Proceedings | Editors | Authors | Reviewers | scientific events
One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.

What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? «  Roy Spencer, PhDKirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htmI
magine a large body that has a deep cavity dug into it. Imagine further that we keep that body at some absolute temperature T and that we have put a small body at a different temperature into the cavity. If the small body has the higher temperature, then it *will radiate heat faster than it absorbs heat*so that there will be a net flow of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. Eventually the system will come to thermal equilibrium; that is, both bodies will have the same temperature and the small body will emit heat as fast as it absorbs heat.

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

This is what Max Planck said in 1914.http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdfPage 31: 
The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random *exchange by radiation *equal amounts of heat with each other..."


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The underlying mechanism of the forces in nature are all in the equations and interpretations of curved space and Feynman diagrams. That is all that physics ever was and will be. If you want anything more you will have to ask your God.
> ...


You are saying all scientists for the last 150 years are naive.
The wave/particle duality was a puzzle 100 years ago, but that's old news. All of EM quantum mechanics is completely understood, and has been modeled to one part per billion accuracy. You are still living in the early 1900's.


----------



## SSDD (May 24, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> [
> So you think all physicists for the past 150 years have fabricated radiation exchange.



What I know is that two way energy exchange has never been observed, or measured...it is a mathematical construct...nothing more.  That is what is evident.

And after gore and obama won nobel prizes, I am surprised that anyone would hold that up as a badge of brilliance.


----------



## SSDD (May 24, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> You are saying all scientists for the last 150 years are naive.



What would you call people who believe in a mathematical construct over every observation and measurement ever made?



Wuwei said:


> All of EM quantum mechanics is completely understood, and has been modeled to one part per billion accuracy. You are still living in the early 1900's.



Now that is one of the stupidest things you have ever said...

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."   Feynman

"Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense."    Roger Penrose.

And I could go on ad nauseum....you are living in a fantasy world....but hey, you believe in AGW so that was a given already...wasn't it?


----------



## Crick (May 24, 2016)

Gore and Obama did not win Nobel Prizes in any field of science, did they.  What no one will hold up as a badge of brilliance is your good opinion in any subject.


----------



## SSDD (May 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> I haven't the faintest idea because such people do not exist.  They do not exist because there is no significant disagreement between the models and the measurement.  I do have a name for someone who claims that there are: liar.



Sorry crick, we have already established beyond any doubt that you are a lair...but feel free to provide some actual recorded measurement of two way energy exchange since you believe it has been measured...



Crick said:


> Both quotes simply address QM's apparent irrationality and have nothing whatsoever to do with an understanding of the rules by which QM works.  Why don't you pull up for us a list of the unsolved issues within QM itself?  If it's such a great mystery, there must be such lists.  Let's see them.



Sure...these are just from a first glance with no real effort put into the search...

Interpretation of quantum mechanics
How does the quantum description of reality, which includes elements such as the superposition of states and wavefunction collapse or quantum decoherence, give rise to the reality we perceive? Another way of stating this question regards the measurement problem: What constitutes a "measurement" which causes the wave function to collapse into a definite state? Unlike classical physical processes, some quantum mechanical processes (such as quantum teleportation arising from quantum entanglement) cannot be simultaneously "local", "causal", and "real", but it is not obvious which of these properties must be sacrificed or if an attempt to describe quantum mechanical processes in these senses is a category error such that a proper understanding of quantum mechanics would render the question meaningless.

Yang–Mills theory
Given an arbitrary compact gauge group, does a non-trivial quantum Yang–Mills theory with a finite mass gap exist? This problem is also listed as one of the Millennium Prize Problems in mathematics.

Physical information
Are there physical phenomena, such as wave function collapse or black holes, which irrevocably destroy information about their prior states? How is quantum information stored as a state of a quantum system?

Dimensionless physical constant
At the present time, the values of the dimensionless physical constants cannot be calculated; they are determined only by physical measurement. What is the minimum number of dimensionless physical constants from which all other dimensionless physical constants can be derived? Are dimensionful physical constants necessary at all?

Vacuum catastrophe
Why does the predicted mass of the quantum vacuum have little effect on the expansion of the universe?

Quantum gravity
Can quantum mechanics and general relativity be realized as a fully consistent theory (perhaps as a quantum field theory)?[8] Is spacetime fundamentally continuous or discrete? Would a consistent theory involve a force mediated by a hypothetical graviton, or be a product of a discrete structure of spacetime itself (as in loop quantum gravity)? Are there deviations from the predictions of general relativity at very small or very large scales or in other extreme circumstances that flow from a quantum gravity theory?

Black holes, black hole information paradox, and black hole radiation
Do black holes produce thermal radiation, as expected on theoretical grounds? Does this radiation contain information about their inner structure, as suggested by gauge–gravity duality, or not, as implied by Hawking's original calculation? If not, and black holes can evaporate away, what happens to the information stored in them (since quantum mechanics does not provide for the destruction of information)? Or does the radiation stop at some point leaving black hole remnants? Is there another way to probe their internal structure somehow, if such a structure even exists?


----------



## Wuwei (May 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> What I know is that ......


What you know is mental bankruptcy


SSDD said:


> What would you call people who believe in a mathematical construct over every observation and measurement ever made?


I would call them scientists who made those observations and measurements and came up with a consistent universal understanding.


SSDD said:


> Now that is one of the stupidest things you have ever said...


Look it up. Quantum Electrodynamics is understood mathematically to an incredible accuracy.


SSDD said:


> "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." Feynman
> 
> "Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense." Roger Penrose.


What they are saying is that the mathematics of QM evades intuition. So what? That shows the amazing power of physical observation and mathematical modeling of those observations.



SSDD said:


> And I could go on ad nauseum....you are living in a fantasy world....but hey, you believe in AGW so that was a given already...wasn't it?


Still trying to make it personal I see.  What you are actually saying is that all physical scientists for the past 150 years are living in a fantasy world. Yeah. Lash out at the whole world.

You and your intellectual equals - Billy Bob, JC, Frank, and Skookerabil have all set a low bar at understanding science and failed to achieve even that.



.


----------



## Crick (May 24, 2016)

Westwall has managed to remove material he posted and that I quoted.


----------



## Wuwei (May 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Sure...these are just from a first glance with no real effort put into the search...
> 
> Interpretation of quantum mechanics  ......  blah blah blah


Yes, we know you can copy science from wikipedia. As Crick said above, it has no relevance to any physics involving atomic structure that is directly connected with climate.


----------



## Wuwei (May 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> Westwall has managed to remove material he posted and that I quoted.


The material SSDD posted is still there, but you had an excellent point by point retort that I saw just moments ago. Now it's gone. My comment above referred to your retort, and now makes no sense. What is going on in this forum???


----------



## skookerasbil (May 24, 2016)

*CLIMATE MODEL PREDICTIONS*

*ACTUAL RESULTS*





As atmospheric CO2 content increases, atmospheric temperatures will rise.

As atmospheric CO2 content increased, atmospheric temperatures have not risen





Hurricane intensity and frequency will increase

Hurricane intensity and frequency have decreased





It’s definitely ALL about the atmosphere

It’s probably about the atmosphere and the oceans, not sure what it’s about





Polar Ice mass will dramatically decrease

Polar ice mass has steadily increased





Worldwide Alpine Glacier ice mass will significantly decrease

Worldwide Alpine Glacier ice mass has remained nearly in balance





El Niños will increase in frequency and intensity

El Niño frequency and intensity are not well understood and unpredictable





Sea level will rise catastrophically

Sea Level has risen very slightly on par with historical post ice age rates





Spending enormous amounts of money will improve model accuracy

Enormous amounts of money has been spent, model accuracy has not improved





The soon to be released and updated climate model is the answer

Successive models continue to fail





The atmosphere will warm, the oceans will NOT warm

The atmosphere has not warmed in 18 years, but the oceans have warmed





Coral reefs will die off in warmer, more acidic oceans

Coral reefs are doing just fine, and have actually rebounded





Climate Models - Beautifully Inaccurate - Climate Dispatch


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



*What I know is that two way energy exchange has never been observed, or measured...*

DERP!


----------



## Crick (May 29, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Westwall has managed to remove material he posted and that I quoted.
> ...



You can see SSDD's posts here?


----------



## Wuwei (May 29, 2016)

Not any more. I could see them when I started typing that response. But when I came back later they were gone. SSDD must have raised his bar on vile language for his posts to be wiped.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


You know, jc, I do believe that post epitomizes the knowledge level of people like you. Well done.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Well now, jc, it is amazing. And you can really see a little of it here. However, for a more complete understanding, you should take a year of Chemistry and Physics, 200 level at a community college.

Energy Levels in Atoms


----------



## Old Rocks (May 29, 2016)

Polar Ice mass will dramatically decrease

Polar ice mass has steadily increased

*What the hell?







Fig.1 Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2014 average for that day of the year. Tickmarks on time axis refer to 1st day of year. The trend for the period 1979- present is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the monthly anomaly plotted once per year.

Polar Science Center » PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis*





Worldwide Alpine Glacier ice mass will significantly decrease

Worldwide Alpine Glacier ice mass has remained nearly in balance

*Where the fuck do you get shit like this?
*







Since glacier termini take a few years to respond to climate change, they will continue to retreat in the foreseeable future regardless of climate. With a continuation of the current climate retreat will continue as the glacier mass balances indicate the glaciers are not approaching equilibrium.

For detailed analysis of over 150 individual glaciers and their retreat histories utilize Glacier Change.

Global glacier retreat

*Many more sites that track the world wide alpine glacial retreat.*


El Niños will increase in frequency and intensity

El Niño frequency and intensity are not well understood and unpredictable

*Well now, we have certainly been seeing some doozies lately, and they certainly have not been decreasing in intensity.*



Sea level will rise catastrophically

Sea Level has risen very slightly on par with historical post ice age rates

*A foot of sea level rise off New York increased the damage of Sandy quite dramatically.*



Spending enormous amounts of money will improve model accuracy

Enormous amounts of money has been spent, model accuracy has not improved

*The past and present models have been far more accurate than the silly denials of the paid shills of the energy corporations.*



The soon to be released and updated climate model is the answer

Successive models continue to fail

*Really? A number of models stated that the next strong El Nino would set records. The very strong El Nino of 2015 definately has set records.*





The atmosphere will warm, the oceans will NOT warm

The atmosphere has not warmed in 18 years, but the oceans have warmed

*That is pure bullshit. Show a link where a reputable scientist stated that the oceans would not warm.*



Coral reefs will die off in warmer, more acidic oceans

Coral reefs are doing just fine, and have actually rebounded

In 1998, a huge underwater heatwave killed 16% of the corals on reefs around the world. Triggered by the El Niño of that year, it was declared the first major global coral bleaching event. The second global bleaching event that struck was triggered by the El Niño of 2010. The US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is predicting another strong El Niño and has now announced the third global bleaching event. The event is expected to impact approximately 38% of the world’s coral reefs by the end of this year and kill over 12,000 square kilometres of reefs.

This new phenomenon of mass bleaching is caused by ocean warming – corals are unable to cope with today’s prolonged peaks in temperatures. They simply haven’t been able to adapt to the higher base temperatures of the ocean. Although reefs represent less than 0.1 percent of the world’s ocean floor, they help support approximately 25 percent of all marine species. As a result, the livelihoods of 500 million people and income worth over $30 billion are at stake.

GLOBAL CORAL BLEACHING – 2015/2016 - THE WORLD’S THIRD MAJOR GLOBAL EVENT

*What a silly lie.*



Climate Models - Beautifully Inaccurate - Climate Dispatch


----------



## jc456 (May 29, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Prove back radiation


----------



## Crick (May 30, 2016)

For the fifth time, a direct measurement of it with spectral identification of its sources






Evans 2006


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> For the fifth time, a direct measurement of it with spectral identification of its sources
> 
> 
> 
> ...


funny Evans believes like me that if this were indeed true, there would be instability and runaway warming. Hmmmmmmmmmm.. It's in Sketical Science:  Funny the site you like.


----------



## Crick (Jun 3, 2016)

Try: https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

You're saying that Evans believes his own paper is not true?  Show us the quote.


----------



## JBond (Jun 6, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Mr. Westwall, you were confidently predicting cooling six years ago, what say you now?


The unmodified temp record shows a cooling trend.The government paid scientists have warped everything to continue their government funding. A question. How many monitoring stations have gone offline in the last 20 years?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 6, 2016)

but the models are always wrong......and the data is frequently rigged.........that is undisputed fact ( unless you talk to a committed alarmist )

Anyway.............who cares................

Renewable Energy's Hidden Costs

The True Costs of Alternative Energy Sources: Are We Unfairly Penalizing Natural Gas?


The argument is moot.........because it is.


----------



## Crick (Jun 6, 2016)

Considering how often you post with no response, YOU must care a lot.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 8, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Bohr theory?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> Try: https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf
> 
> You're saying that Evans believes his own paper is not true?  Show us the quote.


David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold

Skeptical Science none the less.

*"Runaway Warming*
Evans continues demonstrating his misunderstanding of basic climate science with a reference to runaway global warming:

"There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable.""

Oops.


----------



## Crick (Jun 8, 2016)

*Oops*.  Evans 2006 was authored by Wayne F J Evans.  Dr. David Evans is a well known denier fool.

I believe that is the second time you've made that same mistake jc.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> *Oops*.  Evans 2006 was authored by Wayne F J Evans.  Dr. David Evans is a well known denier fool.
> 
> I believe that is the second time you've made that same mistake jc.


It's on you fool


----------



## Crick (Jun 9, 2016)

That you made an ignorant mistake?  I think not.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 9, 2016)

*Britain's Royal Navy warships are breaking down because sea is too hot*
Source: *CNN *

Britain's £1bn ($1.4bn) warships are losing power in the Persian Gulf because they cannot cope with the warm waters, MPs have been told. 

Six Type 45 destroyers have repeatedly experienced power outages because of the temperatures, leaving servicemen in complete darkness. 

During the Defence Committee hearing on Tuesday, MPs questioned company executives about the warship failures. 

"The equipment is having to operate in far more arduous conditions that were initially required," Rolls-Royce director Tomas Leahy said. Managing director of BAE Systems Maritime, John Hudson, supported Leahy's comments, adding: "The operating profile at the time was that there would not be repeated or continuous operations in the Gulf."

Read more: Royal Navy ships are losing power because of warm seas - CNN.com


----------



## JBond (Jun 9, 2016)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 9, 2016)

JBond said:


> http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783


LOL. Complete and total bullshit. Been hearing of global cooling from idiots like these since 1998. And look what the temperatures have been for 2014, 2015, and the present year.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 9, 2016)

JBond said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Westwall, you were confidently predicting cooling six years ago, what say you now?
> ...


A question for you, you stupid bastard. How in the hell are you going to get tens of thousands of scientists from all over the world, all nations, all cultures, religions, and political system to all lie about the same thing? Especially when scientific fraud will get you shunned from the scientific community for the rest of your life. What you are postulating is a gigantic international conspiracy, so powerful, that tens of thousands of people are involved and none of them ever speak of it. LOL


----------



## Vigilante (Jun 9, 2016)

Where all these predictions come from....


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




The *Rutherford–Bohr model* of the hydrogen atom(_Z_ = 1) or a hydrogen-like ion (_Z_ > 1), where the negatively charged electron confined to an atomic shellencircles a small, positively charged atomic nucleus and where an electron jump between orbits is accompanied by an emitted or absorbed amount of electromagnetic energy (_hν_).[1] The orbits in which the electron may travel are shown as grey circles; their radius increases as _n_2, where _n_ is the principal quantum number. The3 → 2 transition depicted here produces the first line of the Balmer series, and for hydrogen (_Z_ = 1) it results in a photon of wavelength 656 nm (red light).

Bohr model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Yep. Bohr theory*


----------



## JBond (Jun 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> JBond said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



The unmodified record shows what it shoes no matter how much you cry like a baby. Now quit your damn whining.

After your silly little rant,  you still didn't answer my question


----------



## SSDD (Jun 10, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> JBond said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




Same way consensus has been achieved  by thousands of people from all over the world, from competing nations, from adversarial cultures and religions and political systems....on topics that span the gamut since the earliest days of recorded human history..you stupid, naive, bastard....a big old bucket full of money....and throw in some political power just for fun and voila...consensus in a can.  Surprising that someone as old as you hasn't picked up on this just from living so long....Hell, I picked up on that back during the 60's.


----------



## Crick (Jun 10, 2016)

Is that what happened with relativity and quantum mechanics and the basic thermodynamics all of which tell us that you haven't the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> That you made an ignorant mistake?  I think not.


I know I didn't.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> JBond said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


*tens of thousands of scientists*

tens of thousands?  hahahahahahaahahahahahaha. Bring em on.  let's see your fkn list of tens of thousands.  Please make our day.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> Is that what happened with relativity and quantum mechanics and the basic thermodynamics all of which tell us that you haven't the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about?


Er.... Crick. He isn't talking about science right now. He knows better. He is now talking about his conspiracy theory.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 10, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Is that what happened with relativity and quantum mechanics and the basic thermodynamics all of which tell us that you haven't the faintest fuck of an idea what you're talking about?
> ...




Still waiting on that first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the A in AGW .....any time, skid mark..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 10, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Still waiting on that first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports...one way flow of radiation.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 10, 2016)

you are on my ignore list toddster...first person I ever put there...congratulations....

To answer your question, every observation and measurement ever made supports the physical law that energy flow is in one direction....but then it is stupid comments like that that got you on ignore in the first place...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 10, 2016)

SSDD said:


> you are on my ignore list toddster...first person I ever put there...congratulations....
> 
> To answer your question, every observation and measurement ever made supports the physical law that energy flow is in one direction....but then it is stupid comments like that that got you on ignore in the first place...



Well, I am better than most at highlighting your ignorance, so that makes sense.

*To answer your question, every observation and measurement ever made supports the physical law that energy flow is in one direction
*
Still spreading this lie. So is it smart photons or smart emitters that make your fantasy possible?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 10, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > you are on my ignore list toddster...first person I ever put there...congratulations....
> ...


Cold doesn't flow to warm let's keep things straight


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 10, 2016)

SSDD said:


> To answer your question, every observation and measurement ever made supports the physical law that energy flow is in one direction


No, heat flows in one direction, not energy.

The second law of thermodynamics can be stated in terms of entropy: In an irreversible process, entropy always increases

A closed system of two objects in proximity, one hotter than the other, would initially have a quantifiable value of entropy. We can all agree that radiation will cause the hotter object to cool down and the colder object to warm up. As a result, the entropy of the system will increase.

There is nothing in the entropy concept of the 2nd law that prevents both objects from radiating energy toward each other, as long as the hotter object always radiates more energy to the colder object than the colder object radiates to the hotter object. In radiation energy exchange, entropy will increase and satisfy the 2nd law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 10, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



We aren't talking about "cold flowing", we're talking about radiation.
Do you feel radiation can flow from matter that's at 6000 K to matter that's at 500,000 K?


----------



## Crick (Jun 11, 2016)

SSDD said:


> you are on my ignore list toddster...first person I ever put there...congratulations....
> 
> To answer your question, every observation and measurement ever made supports the physical law that energy flow is in one direction....but then it is stupid comments like that that got you on ignore in the first place...



Excellent, excellent, excellent.  The moment you put him on ignore, he won.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


You need work to make that happen.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 12, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Trying to explain mass dynamics to todd is like trying to teach graph reading to crick.. Hopeless....


----------



## IanC (Jun 12, 2016)

SSDD said:


> you are on my ignore list toddster...first person I ever put there...congratulations....
> 
> To answer your question, every observation and measurement ever made supports the physical law that energy flow is in one direction....but then it is stupid comments like that that got you on ignore in the first place...




Bodies of water, from puddles to oceans, are often cooler than the surrounding air yet evaporation still occurs which sends energy from the water into the air. 

Your views are simplistic and at odds with reality. You conflate different principles with differing conditions and try to force everything into one generalization.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 12, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Radiation travels from the Sun's surface, at 6000 K to the Sun's corona, at 500,000 K.
Don't tell SSDD, he'll block you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 12, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Mass dynamics? Please tell me more.

Does it have something to do with smart emitters or smart photons?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Guess you don't realize that there's a power source. Wow TODD, I expect better from you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 12, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



By that "logic" the cooler atmosphere can emit to the warmer surface of the Earth, because there is a power source.

Don't tell SSDD, you'll make his "smart photons" very sad.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


No it can't, there is no power source. Still disappointed in ya lady


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 12, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The Earth warms with no power source?

Wow!


----------



## jc456 (Jun 12, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Exactly, finally, you really are lost. Sun is our source and you think it's local! Hahahaha

Hey, lady, it's why your hypothesis is dead!

Oh, the sun is our power source, how's that go, DERP!


----------



## jc456 (Jun 12, 2016)

Hey TODD , can energy move cold to warm without work? You never replied lady!  Doh!


----------



## jc456 (Jun 12, 2016)

And, no back radiation because no local power source. Doh!


----------



## jc456 (Jun 12, 2016)

Hey toddie, what do you you think is our power source? Enlighten us.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 12, 2016)

jc Todd has repeatedly explained the physics to you. That you are too stupid to understand it is no fault of his.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 12, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc Todd has repeatedly explained the physics to you. That you are too stupid to understand it is no fault of his.


Huh? What is earth's power source?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 12, 2016)

See above


----------



## jc456 (Jun 12, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> See above


I did, says, huh, what's earth's power source?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 12, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Sun is our source
*
Yup. It heats the Earth, Earth emits to atmosphere, atmosphere emits to Earth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 12, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Hey TODD , can energy move cold to warm without work? You never replied lady!  Doh!



The Sun isn't work?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 12, 2016)

jc456 said:


> And, no back radiation because no local power source. Doh!



Power source has to be local?

Your claims keep moving further out there.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > To answer your question, every observation and measurement ever made supports the physical law that energy flow is in one direction
> ...



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.

Pretty straight forward statement.  Can't really understand why someone who believes he is as smart as you think you are does't seem to be able to understand it.

And the only thing that that prevents both objects from radiating towards each other is the underlying mechanism of the second law of thermodynamics which has shown us via every measurement and observation ever made that neither ENERGY nor HEAT will move spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object...energy always moves towards a state of greater entropy....any energy whatsoever moving from a cool object to a warmer object would be moving towards a state of less entropy. 

And the earth is not a closed system...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > you are on my ignore list toddster...first person I ever put there...congratulations....
> ...



No...the moment I put him on ignore...i stopped dealing with a 5 year old....if I want to talk to little kids I have grandkids to ask incessantly why.


If you care to copy the post where he demonstrated a measured observation of energy moving in two directions feel free.....otherwise he clearly didn't win...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > you are on my ignore list toddster...first person I ever put there...congratulations....
> ...



You seem to be the simple one Ian....are you claiming that evaporation is not work being done by the energy within the climate?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc Todd has repeatedly explained the physics to you. That you are too stupid to understand it is no fault of his.



Todd never "explains" anything...inane one liners are about all he is capable of...not surprising that you would accept such as explanation of anything...after all, you have swallowed the AGW scam on little more.


----------



## Crick (Jun 13, 2016)

He has repeatedly run rings around your insane misinterpretations of basic physics.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 13, 2016)

SSDD said:


> .energy always moves towards a state of greater entropy.


That's not quite right. The *distribution of energy* moves toward a state of greater entropy; not energy itself.


SSDD said:


> any energy whatsoever moving from a cool object to a warmer object would be moving towards a state of less entropy.


You are confusing entropy with energy again. Spontaneous energy of particles in a system can move freely anywhere, subject to the forces of nature. The only requirement is that the entropy of the *system* increases over time.

There is nothing in the entropy concept of the 2nd law that prevents two objects from radiating energy toward each other as long as the entropy of the *system* increases.

Try to remember that entropy is a measure of the distribution of energy in an entire system of particles and not the energy of a subset of particles.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 13, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > jc Todd has repeatedly explained the physics to you. That you are too stupid to understand it is no fault of his.
> ...



*inane one liners are about all he is capable of
*
Smart photons know the temperature of everything in the universe, and only travel toward colder matter. Derp!


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


have you figured out how the sun gets its heat yet?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*atmosphere emits to Earth.*

hahahahaahahahahaha why don't we have the same heat in the atmosphere as the sun has in its corona?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



We should, based on your claim that the atmosphere absorbs and never emits. LOL!

You never followed up on your "CO2 cools the planet" idea. What are you afraid of?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



It's called fusion. Is fusion the reason the 6000 K surface of the Sun can emit to the 500,000 K corona?

Don't the smart photons know the corona is too hot? Durr.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


no the photons are moving because the sun is cooking.  The hydro fusion emits them just like a stove to a hot plate. What do you supposed happens when the hydro fusion stops?  DOH!! that hot corona ain't gonna help.  oops.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> That's not quite right. The *distribution of energy* moves toward a state of greater entropy; not energy itself.



Sorry guy...you are interpreting again....the fact is that energy won't move spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object...if the physical law meant something else, it would say something else and you would be able to observe that what it says actually happens...that is, after all, how it became a physical law in the first place...every observation ever made was energy moving from warm to cool...not the other way around.



Wuwei said:


> You are confusing entropy with energy again. Spontaneous energy of particles in a system can move freely anywhere, subject to the forces of nature. [/quote
> 
> not what the physical law says...your interpretation runs contrary to every observation ever made.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*no the photons are moving because the sun is cooking
*
The Sun's surface isn't "cooking". No fusion at the surface.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


the core is, and well.

BTW, again with miss quoting me.  You sure like to do that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



The surface isn't doing any work to radiate to the hotter corona.

You never explained how CO2 cools the Earth without radiating.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 13, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > That's not quite right. The *distribution of energy* moves toward a state of greater entropy; not energy itself.
> ...


That is not an interpretation. That comes from the definition of entropy. 


SSDD said:


> .the fact is that energy won't move spontaneously from a cool object to a warmer object.


The application of Entropy to a system indicates nothing about the mode of heat transfer. It only puts constraints on the state of the system during transfer. Two-way radiation between objects does not violate the defining constraints of Entropy. Period.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I did.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


the fusion is at the core.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


*That is not an interpretation. That comes from the definition of entropy.*

link!  looked on line and didn't see your version.  perhaps you could identify where your version comes from.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> link!


Look up statistical mechanics


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > link!
> ...


i found this from university of texas.  Thermodynamics & Statistical Mechanics:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/sm1/statmech.pdf

"Many people are drawn to Physics because they want to understand why the
world around us is like it is. For instance, why the sky is blue, why raindrops are
spherical, why we do not fall through the floor, etc. It turns out that statistical
thermodynamics can explain more things about the world around us than all
of the other physical theories studied in the undergraduate Physics curriculum
put together. For instance, in this course we shall explain why *heat flows from
hot to cold bodies,* why the air becomes thinner and colder at higher altitudes,
why the Sun appears yellow whereas colder stars appear red and hotter stars
appear bluish-white, why it is impossible to measure a temperature below -273
centigrade, why there is a maximum theoretical efficiency of a power generation
unit which can never be exceeded no matter what the design, why high mass
stars must ultimately collapse to form black-holes, and much more!"


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > link!
> ...


still looking for that whole two-way radiation thingy you mentioned.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2016)

there is also this from Wikipedia:

"In 1738, Swiss physicist and mathematician Daniel Bernoulli published _Hydrodynamica_ which laid the basis for the kinetic theory of gases. In this work, Bernoulli posited the argument, still used to this day, that gases consist of great numbers of molecules moving in all directions, that their impact on a surface causes the gas pressure that we feel, and that what we experience as heat is simply the kinetic energy of their motion.[5]"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You mean your claim that CO2 absorbs heat and then escapes the planet?

Was that a serious claim?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes. And at the surface, photons are going from cooler to hotter.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 13, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> That is not an interpretation. That comes from the definition of entropy.
> .



Of course it is an interpretation..but it still doesn't get energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm...and back radiation simply doesn't happen no matter how much you wish it did....and the greenhouse hypothesis is bullshit...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


_
For instance, in this course we shall explain why _*heat flows from
hot to cold bodies,
*
They could have said,* "we shall explain why radiation flows from
hot to cold bodies", *but they didn't.

It's weird, but that doesn't prove your silly claim. You'd think, that if "heat" and "radiation"
were interchangeable, that you could find some actual backup for your claim.


----------



## Crick (Jun 13, 2016)

Or why they didn't say heat flows ONLY from hot bodies to cold bodies.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


With work, Derp


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Maybe you could find one for your silly claim


----------



## jc456 (Jun 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


They could have, but didn't!


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 13, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > That is not an interpretation. That comes from the definition of entropy.
> ...


Where in the expression of entropy does it say that radiation is only a one-way flow of EM energy or radiation exchange is not possible. There is no scientific publication that gives entropy that caveat. The thermodynamic expression of entropy does not indicate in any way how energy flows, it simply means the state of "randomness" increases.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Here's my backup.

Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So tell me more about CO2 escaping the atmosphere.

Or does it cool the planet in some other magical way?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Because if they had, they'd be wrong, like you.


----------



## westwall (Jun 13, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...










The flow of energy is one way.  From heat (order) to cold (randomness).  Your understanding of entropy is very.........inaccurate.

"If a glass of hot liquid, for example, as shown in Figure 3, is placed in a colder room a potential exists and a flow of heat is spontaneously produced from the cup to the room until it is minimized (or the entropy is maximized) at which point the temperatures are the same and all flows stop."




Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 13, 2016)

westwall said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*
at which point the temperatures are the same and all flows stop."*

What about radiation? Don't the cup and room radiate as long as they are above 0 K?


----------



## westwall (Jun 13, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...







Yes, until the whole universe reaches Absolute Zero when all motion, even molecular, stops.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 13, 2016)

westwall said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



So matter can radiate toward warmer matter......because photons don't have thermometers.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 13, 2016)

I made a A in Thermodynamics after I failed it the first time.  That was over 25 years ago.  It is my understanding that an object is space will radiate energy regardless of any other objects. 

Let's say we have a system with only two objects, object 1 and object 2.  Let's assume these objects are in a vacum and separated (not touching) so there is no conduction or convection heat transfer.  Then the change in heat energy for object 1 will be 
- energy radiated from object 1 + energy radiated from object 2 to object 1.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 14, 2016)

westwall said:


> The flow of energy is one way. From heat (order) to cold (randomness). Your understanding of entropy is very.........inaccurate.
> 
> "If a glass of hot liquid, for example, as shown in Figure 3, is placed in a colder room a potential exists and a flow of heat is spontaneously produced from the cup to the room until it is minimized (or the entropy is maximized) at which point the temperatures are the same and all flows stop."


You are preaching to the choir. Tell SSDD that. He needs to hear it again.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 14, 2016)

westwall said:


> Yes, until the whole universe reaches Absolute Zero when all motion, even molecular, stops.


The whole universe? Do you know that's it's not impossible for anything to reach absolute zero. What happens to all the energy of the universe. You want to violate the conservation of energy too?  My gosh, and you are a moderator of a thread that involves science. You guys always amaze me.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 14, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Yes, but the heat transfer from the warmer object will overpower the heat transfer from the cooler object.


----------



## Crick (Jun 14, 2016)

CORRECT!


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > *Global warming 'hiatus' never happened, Stanford scientists ...*
> ...



Everyone who grasped the cyclical nature of the climate could predict long term warming 30 years ago....the earth warming had been going on since the end of the little ice age...and in the long term,  it was warming further than the eye could see because we are in an interglacial and the warming will continue till it turns cold again....

It is the same principle as the old time high priests used to subjugate ignorant people...they knew when the monsoons would come...when the crops would grow...etc etc and they used that knowledge to gain power over people who weren't aware of the clockwork nature of natural cycles...

You have been shown graphs showing the extent of data manipulation over and over but you are so mired in your ignorance and misguided faith in climate pseudoscience the you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that you have been hoodwinked.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Says NOAA?  Kings of data manipulation.
> ...









Care to explain how altering temperatures from as far back as 1880 has made the record more accurate?  What do we know about reading a thermometer now that we didn't know back in 1880...or 1930...or 1970...or 1990?  How do you suppose those manipulations across the entire record have made it more accurate?


----------



## Crick (Jun 14, 2016)

SSDD would put all the calibration labs out of business.  Just communist hoaxsters.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD would put all the calibration labs out of business.  Just communist hoaxsters.


I do not know why we bother with NOAA and NASA when the real knowledge and climate geniuses are Right here at USMB....they can predict the paths of storms better than NOAA ..I think SSDD should issue his predictions on the path of storms this hurricane season when the storms begin and we should not listen to whatever predictions NOAA is making we should listen to the ANONYMOUS moron...

If a Hurricane starts to head towards the US I am not listening to  those fakers at NOAA I am coming here to ask the "EINSTEINS" where the storm is going LOL


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



And you have no answer to the questions because there is no rational, scientifically valid reason for the temperature tampering...you are either a shill, or one of the hopelessly duped...my guess is that you are just hopelessly duped.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD would put all the calibration labs out of business.  Just communist hoaxsters.



Really crick....what sort of improvement do you think was achieved in the record by altering temperatures from the 1970's back...how do you suppose they retroactively check the changes?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD would put all the calibration labs out of business.  Just communist hoaxsters.
> ...




I am asking you for rational, scientifically valid reasons to change temperatures taken more than 100 years ago and you are ranting about storms?  What sort of argument is that?


----------



## Crick (Jun 14, 2016)

It's the sort of argument someone like you is likely to receive.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> It's the sort of argument someone like you is likely to receive.



And no answer to how you believe the record was made "more accurate" by altering temperatures 40, 50, 75, even 100 years ago and more....and no observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the A in AGW....you are losing at every turn...must suck to be you.


----------



## Crick (Jun 14, 2016)

*Understanding Adjustments to 
Temperature Data*
There has been much discussion of temperature adjustment of late in both climate blogs and in the media, but not much background on what specific adjustments are being made, why they are being made, and what effects they have. Adjustments have a big effect on temperature trends in the U.S., and a modest effect on global land trends. The large contribution of adjustments to century-scale U.S. temperature trends lends itself to an unfortunate narrative that “government bureaucrats are cooking the books”.




Figure 1. Global (left) and CONUS (right) homogenized and raw data from NCDC and Berkeley Earth. Series are aligned relative to 1990-2013 means. NCDC data is from GHCN v3.2 and USHCN v2.5 respectively.

Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years. Their methods may not be perfect, and are certainly not immune from critical analysis, but that critical analysis should start out from a position of assuming good faith and with an understanding of what exactly has been done.

This will be the first post in a three-part series examining adjustments in temperature data, with a specific focus on the U.S. land temperatures. This post will provide an overview of the adjustments done and their relative effect on temperatures. The second post will examine Time of Observation adjustments in more detail, using hourly data from the pristine U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) to empirically demonstrate the potential bias introduced by different observation times. The final post will examine automated pairwise homogenization approaches in more detail, looking at how breakpoints are detected and how algorithms can tested to ensure that they are equally effective at removing both cooling and warming biases.

Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data - Berkeley Earth


----------



## Crick (Jun 14, 2016)

*Why Adjust Temperatures?*
There are a number of folks who question the need for adjustments at all. Why not just use raw temperatures, they ask, since those are pure and unadulterated? The problem is that (with the exception of the newly created Climate Reference Network), there is really no such thing as a pure and unadulterated temperature record. Temperature stations in the U.S. are mainly operated by volunteer observers (the Cooperative Observer Network, or co-op stations for short). Many of these stations were set up in the late 1800s and early 1900s as part of a national network of weather stations, focused on measuring day-to-day changes in the weather rather than decadal-scale changes in the climate.






Figure 2. Documented time of observation changes and instrument changes by year in the co-op and USHCN station networks. Figure courtesy of Claude Williams (NCDC).

Nearly every single station in the network in the network has been moved at least once over the last century, with many having 3 or more distinct moves. Most of the stations have changed from using liquid in glass thermometers (LiG) in Stevenson screens to electronic Minimum Maximum Temperature Systems (MMTS) or Automated Surface Observing Systems (ASOS). Observation times have shifted from afternoon to morning at most stations since 1960, as part of an effort by the National Weather Service to improve precipitation measurements.

All of these changes introduce (non-random) systemic biases into the network. For example, MMTS sensors tend to read maximum daily temperatures about 0.5 C colder than LiG thermometers at the same location. There is a very obvious cooling bias in the record associated with the conversion of most co-op stations from LiG to MMTS in the 1980s, and even folks deeply skeptical of the temperature network like Anthony Watts and his coauthors add an explicit correction for this in their paper.






Figure 3. Time of Observation over time in the USHCN network. Figure from Menne et al 2009.

Time of observation changes from afternoon to morning also can add a cooling bias of up to 0.5 C, affecting maximum and minimum temperatures similarly. The reasons why this occurs, how it is tested, and how we know that documented time of observations are correct (or not) will be discussed in detail in the subsequent post. There are also significant positive minimum temperature biases from urban heat islands that add a trend bias up to 0.2 C nationwide to raw readings.

Because the biases are large and systemic, ignoring them is not a viable option. If some corrections to the data are necessary, there is a need for systems to make these corrections in a way that does not introduce more bias than they remove.

Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data - Berkeley Earth


----------



## Crick (Jun 14, 2016)

*What are the Adjustments?*
Two independent groups, the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) and Berkeley Earth (hereafter Berkeley) start with raw data and use differing methods to create a best estimate of global (and U.S.) temperatures. Other groups like NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU) take data from NCDC and other sources and perform additional adjustments, like GISS’s nightlight-based urban heat island corrections.





Figure 4. Diagram of processing steps for creating USHCN adjusted temperatures. Note that TAvg temperatures are calculated based on separately adjusted TMin and TMax temperatures.

This post will focus primarily on NCDC’s adjustments, as they are the official government agency tasked with determining U.S. (and global) temperatures. The figure below shows the four major adjustments (including quality control) performed on USHCN data, and their respective effect on the resulting mean temperatures.




Figure 5. Impact of adjustments on U.S. temperatures relative to the 1900-1910 period, following the approach used in creating the old USHCN v1 adjustment plot.

NCDC starts by collecting the raw data from the co-op network stations. These records are submitted electronically for most stations, though some continue to send paper forms that must be manually keyed into the system. A subset of the 7,000 or so co-op stations are part of the U.S. Historical Climatological Network (USHCN), and are used to create the official estimate of U.S. temperatures.

*Quality Control*
Once the data has been collected, it is subjected to an automated quality control (QC) procedure that looks for anomalies like repeated entries of the same temperature value, minimum temperature values that exceed the reported maximum temperature of that day (or vice-versa), values that far exceed (by five sigma or more) expected values for the station, and similar checks. A full list of QC checks isavailable here.

Daily minimum or maximum temperatures that fail quality control are flagged, and a raw daily file is maintained that includes original values with their associated QC flags. Monthly minimum, maximum, and mean temperatures are calculated using daily temperature data that passes QC checks. A monthly mean is calculated only when nine or fewer daily values are missing or flagged. A raw USHCN monthly data file is available that includes both monthly values and associated QC flags.

The impact of QC adjustments is relatively minor. Apart from a slight cooling of temperatures prior to 1910, the trend is unchanged by QC adjustments for the remainder of the record (e.g. the red line in Figure 5).

*Time of Observation (TOBs) Adjustments*
Temperature data is adjusted based on its reported time of observation. Each observer is supposed to report the time at which observations were taken. While some variance of this is expected, as observers won’t reset the instrument at the same time every day, these departures should be mostly random and won’t necessarily introduce systemic bias. The major sources of bias are introduced by system-wide decisions to change observing times, as shown in Figure 3. The gradual network-wide switch from afternoon to morning observation times after 1950 has introduced a CONUS-wide cooling bias of about 0.2 to 0.25 C. The TOBs adjustments are outlined and tested in Karl et al 1986 and Vose et al 2003, and will be explored in more detail in the subsequent post. The impact of TOBs adjustments is shown in Figure 6, below.




Figure 6. Time of observation adjustments to USHCN relative to the 1900-1910 period.
TOBs adjustments affect minimum and maximum temperatures similarly, and are responsible for slightly more than half the magnitude of total adjustments to USHCN data.

*Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm (PHA) Adjustments*
The Pairwise Homogenization Algorithm was designed as an automated method of detecting and correcting localized temperature biases due to station moves, instrument changes, microsite changes, and meso-scale changes like urban heat islands.

The algorithm (whose code can be downloaded here) is conceptually simple: it assumes that climate change forced by external factors tends to happen regionally rather than locally. If one station is warming rapidly over a period of a decade a few kilometers from a number of stations that are cooling over the same period, the warming station is likely responding to localized effects (instrument changes, station moves, microsite changes, etc.) rather than a real climate signal.

To detect localized biases, the PHA iteratively goes through all the stations in the network and compares each of them to their surrounding neighbors. It calculates difference series between each station and their neighbors (separately for min and max) and looks for breakpoints that show up in the record of one station but none of the surrounding stations. These breakpoints can take the form of both abrupt step-changes and gradual trend-inhomogenities that move a station’s record further away from its neighbors. The figures below show histograms of all the detected breakpoints (and their magnitudes) for both minimum and maximum temperatures.




Figure 7. Histogram of all PHA changepoint adjustments for versions 3.1 and 3.2 of the PHA for minimum (left) and maximum (right) temperatures.
While fairly symmetric in aggregate, there are distinct temporal patterns in the PHA adjustments. The single largest of these are positive adjustments in maximum temperatures to account for transitions from LiG instruments to MMTS and ASOS instruments in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Other notable PHA-detected adjustments are minimum (and more modest maximum) temperature shifts associated with a widespread move of stations from inner city rooftops to newly-constructed airports or wastewater treatment plants after 1940, as well as gradual corrections of urbanizing sites like Reno, Nevada. The net effect of PHA adjustments is shown in Figure 8, below.




Figure 8. Time of observation adjustments to USHCN relative to the 1900-1910 period.
The PHA has a large impact on max temperatures post-1980, corresponding to the period of transition to MMTS and ASOS instruments. Max adjustments are fairly modest pre-1980s, and are presumably responding mostly to the effects of station moves. Minimum temperature adjustments are more mixed, with no real century-scale trend impact. These minimum temperature adjustments do seem to remove much of the urban-correlated warming bias in minimum temperatures, even if only rural stations are used in the homogenization process to avoid any incidental aliasing in of urban warming, as discussed in Hausfather et al. 2013.

The PHA can also effectively detect and deal with breakpoints associated with Time of Observation changes. When NCDC’s PHA is run without doing the explicit TOBs adjustment described previously, the results are largely the same (see the discussion of this in Williams et al 2012). Berkeley uses a somewhat analogous relative difference approach to homogenization that also picks up and removes TOBs biases without the need for an explicit adjustment.

With any automated homogenization approach, it is critically important that the algorithm be tested with synthetic data with various types of biases introduced (step changes, trend inhomogenities, sawtooth patterns, etc.), to ensure that the algorithm will identically deal with biases in both directions and not create any new systemic biases when correcting inhomogenities in the record. This was done initially inWilliams et al 2012 and Venema et al 2012. There are ongoing efforts to create a standardized set of tests that various groups around the world can submit homogenization algorithms to be evaluated by, as discussed in our recently submitted paper. This process, and other detailed discussion of automated homogenization, will be discussed in more detail in part three of this series of posts.

*Infilling*
Finally we come to infilling, which has garnered quite a bit of attention of late due to some rather outlandish claims of its impact. Infilling occurs in the USHCN network in two different cases: when the raw data is not available for a station, and when the PHA flags the raw data as too uncertain to homogenize (e.g. in between two station moves when there is not a long enough record to determine with certainty the impact that the initial move had). Infilled data is marked with an “E” flag in the adjusted data file (FLs.52i) provided by NCDC, and its relatively straightforward to test the effects it has by calculating U.S. temperatures with and without the infilled data. The results are shown in Figure 9, below:




Figure 9. Infilling-related adjustments to USHCN relative to the 1900-1910 period.
Apart from a slight adjustment prior to 1915, infilling has no effect on CONUS-wide trends. These results are identical to those found in Menne et al 2009. This is expected, because the way NCDC does infilling is to add the long-term climatology of the station that is missing (or not used) to the average spatially weighted anomaly of nearby stations. This is effectively identical to any other form of spatial weighting.

To elaborate, temperature stations measure temperatures at specific locations. If we are trying to estimate the average temperature over a wide area like the U.S. or the Globe, it is advisable to use gridding or some more complicated form of spatial interpolation to assure that our results are representative of the underlying temperature field. For example, about a third of the available global temperature stations are in U.S. If we calculated global temperatures without spatial weighting, we’d be treating the U.S. as 33% of the world’s land area rather than ~5%, and end up with a rather biased estimate of global temperatures. The easiest way to do spatial weighting is using gridding, e.g. to assign all stations to grid cells that have the same size (as NASA GISS used to do) or same lat/lon size (e.g. 5×5 lat/lon, as HadCRUT does). Other methods include kriging (used by Berkeley Earth) or a distance-weighted average of nearby station anomalies (used by GISS and NCDC these days).

As shown above, infilling has no real impact on temperature trends vs. not infilling. The only way you get in trouble is if the composition of the network is changing over time and if you do not remove the underlying climatology/seasonal cycle through the use of anomalies or similar methods. In that case, infilling will give you a correct answer, but not infilling will result in a biased estimate since the underlying climatology of the stations is changing. This has been discussed at length elsewhere, so I won’t dwell on it here.

I’m actually not a big fan of NCDC’s choice to do infilling, not because it makes a difference in the results, but rather because it confuses things more than it helps (witness all the sturm und drang of late over “zombie stations”). Their choice to infill was primarily driven by a desire to let people calculate a consistent record of absolute temperatures by ensuring that the station composition remained constant over time. A better (and more accurate) approach would be to create a separate absolute temperature product by adding a long-term average climatology field to an anomaly field, similar to the approach that Berkeley Earth takes.

*Changing the Past?*
Diligent observers of NCDC’s temperature record have noted that many of the values change by small amounts on a daily basis. This includes not only recent temperatures but those in the distant past as well, and has created some confusion about why, exactly, the recorded temperatures in 1917 should change day-to-day. The explanation is relatively straightforward. NCDC assumes that the current set of instruments recording temperature is accurate, so any time of observation changes or PHA-adjustments are done relative to current temperatures. Because breakpoints are detected through pair-wise comparisons, new data coming in may slightly change the magnitude of recent adjustments by providing a more comprehensive difference series.

When breakpoints are removed, the entire record prior to the breakpoint is adjusted up or down depending on the size and direction of the breakpoint. This means that slight modifications of recent breakpoints will impact all past temperatures at the station in question though a constant offset. The alternative to this would be to assume that the original data is accurate, and adjusted any new data relative to the old data (e.g. adjust everything in front of breakpoints rather than behind them). From the perspective of calculating trends over time, these two approaches are identical, and its not clear that there is necessarily a preferred option.

Hopefully this (and the following two articles) should help folks gain a better understanding of the issues in the surface temperature network and the steps scientists have taken to try to address them. These approaches are likely far from perfect, and it is certainly possible that the underlying algorithms could be improved to provide more accurate results. Hopefully the ongoing International Surface Temperature Initiative, which seeks to have different groups around the world send their adjustment approaches in for evaluation using common metrics, will help improve the general practice in the field going forward.

Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data - Berkeley Earth


----------



## Crick (Jun 14, 2016)

How's that SID?


----------



## Crick (Jun 15, 2016)

SID?  Any comment?  You did ask.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 16, 2016)

Still waiting for a rational scientifically valid reason for altering temperatures from40, 50, 70, 90 and even more than 100 years ago... clearly you have no idea so you bored us with that steaming pile which didn't give a rational scientifically valid reason for altering temperatures from so long ago....unsurprising.

The only reason your big steaming pile gave for altering long past records is that the NCDC makes an assumption....does altering an entire temperature record based on an assumption sound more like pseudoscience than science to you?..it certainly does to me...they weren't able to give any solid fact based reasons for altering the past temperature record....once again, you demonstrate how it is that you have been duped so thoroughly....you post that big steaming pile based on my question as to what rational, scientifically valid reason the past temperature changes were made...and the only reason they gave for altering the past record was that NCDC ASSUMES...how rational, or scientifically valid is that?

Laughable skid mark....laughable...


----------



## Crick (Jun 16, 2016)

That it satisfies several thousand PhD climate scientists who have not voiced a single complaint - including several on your side of the argument - soothes the hurt of your failure to accept mainstream science.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> That it satisfies several thousand PhD climate scientists who have not voiced a single complaint - including several on your side of the argument - soothes the hurt of your failure to accept mainstream science.




The fact that so many "scientists" are satisfied that an assumption is justification to alter an entire temperature record with no actual hard evidence to support the change says far more about the state of climate science that it does about me...and the fact that you believe such an assumption is justification to alter an entire temperature record speaks volumes about you and what passes for science in your mind.

Cimate science is and always has been based on assumption .....no point in becoming actual science now at this point I guess...till the whole thing comes crashing down at which time perhaps it will become an actual science in the  rebuild.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> That it satisfies several thousand PhD climate scientists who have not voiced a single complaint - including several on your side of the argument - soothes the hurt of your failure to accept mainstream science.


where is that list of several thousand? I've been waiting on that one.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 16, 2016)

NO CHANGE

Non-Greenland Arctic ice melts because Arctic Ocean continues to grow.

97% of Earth ice on Antarctica and Greenland continues to grow.

NO EFFECT...

In a million years, temps will drop a degree or two and oceans will be lower by 1-5 feet, regardless if CO2 goes up 10 fold or not...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 16, 2016)

westwall said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Oh my, Mr. Westwall has joined SSDD and jc in claiming smart photons. Oh well, what is one to expect in that case?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 17, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Oh my....oh my....oh my.....lions and tigers and bears OH MY!!!!!!   Seems that rocks is under the impression that energy must possess intelligence in order to obey the laws of nature...OH MY!!!!


----------



## Crick (Jun 17, 2016)

Explain how matter throttles its radiations dependent on the temperature of distant objects.

If you have to say "It's an unknowable, I think you should resign this argument for all time.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 17, 2016)

Crick said:


> Explain how matter throttles its radiations dependent on the temperature of distant objects.
> 
> If you have to say "It's an unknowable, I think you should resign this argument for all time.



Explain the fundamental mechanism for gravity...seems that it should be much more simple than energy transfer...and yet, we don't know....you don't have to know how...or why....in order for a thing to be true...and since the mechanism for gravity is at present an unknowable...should all discussion of gravity be suspended till we actually do know?


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 17, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Oh my....oh my....oh my.....lions and tigers and bears OH MY!!!!!! Seems that rocks is under the impression that energy must possess intelligence in order to obey the laws of nature...OH MY!!!!


Speaking of intelligence of matter you still haven't answered why you think there is only one way energy flow in light of the entropy concept of the second law. 

There is nothing in the entropy concept of the 2nd law that prevents two objects from radiating energy toward each other, as long as the net radiation energy is from the hotter to the colder object. In radiation energy exchange, entropy will continually increase and satisfy the 2nd law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 17, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Explain how matter throttles its radiations dependent on the temperature of distant objects.
> ...



One way transfer because......hey look, gravity. Derp!


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> One way transfer because......hey look, gravity. Derp!


LOL. That reminds me of a talking dog being... LOOK. SQUIRREL !  ... distracted.

Of course that was your intention.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 17, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > One way transfer because......hey look, gravity. Derp!
> ...



Same Shit Different Derp sure likes his epicycles.


----------



## Crick (Jun 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Ah...


----------



## Crick (Jun 17, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Explain how matter throttles its radiations dependent on the temperature of distant objects.
> ...



Stefan and Boltzmann derived their laws of black body radiation in the 1880s, long before the atomic and subatomic mechanisms responsible for radiation were known.  The behavior of gravity is VERY well characterized by the understanding we have of it right now.  Several theories exist concerning its actual mechanism but are beyond our capability to test.  This does not get you off the hook.

You claim that all matter is somehow capable of restricting emissions in directions that would allow those emissions to travel towards a body of a higher temperature.  Besided being absolutely ludicrous on its face, this concept violates special relativity.  And that is still ignoring the lack of any CONCEIVABLE mechanism.

There's an idea. Just give us some wilid-eyed, top-of-your-head, blue-sky-dreaming, W-A-G ideas as to how matter MIGHT know the temperatures of its surrounding, no matter the distance, and control the direction and the intensity of its emission in response.  And if you can think of a method that does so without requiring all matter to be intelligent, so much the better.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 17, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Just wonder if you think the atmosphere is a black body?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 17, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


BTW still no evidence!


----------



## Crick (Jun 18, 2016)

Of what?


----------



## IanC (Jun 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Just wonder if you think the atmosphere is a black body?



of course it isnt.

is the Sun a blackbody?

speaking of the Sun, is the surface just the top of the atmosphere? some people here have been talking about the Sun's corona as if that was the sun's 'atmosphere'. what a ridiculous comparison.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 19, 2016)

WeatherBELL Chief Forecaster Joe Bastardi Denies Basic Physics: ‘CO2 Cannot Cause Global Warming’
BASTARDI: CO2 cannot cause global warming. I’ll tell you why. It doesn’t mix well with the atmosphere, for one. For two, its specific gravity is 1 1/2 times that of the rest of the atmosphere. It heats and cools much quicker. Its radiative processes are much different. So it cannot — it literally cannot cause global warming.


Asked about Bastardi’s statements, Kerry Emanuel of MIT said: “Utter rubbish. Sorry to be so direct, but that is just the case.” NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt added: “Bastardi is attempting to throw out 150 years of physics.” “He seems very confused,” said physicist Richard Muller.

Bastardi may be hoping that when delivered confidently, terms like “specific gravity” and “radiative processes” can convince Fox’s viewers that he knows what he’s talking about. But don’t be fooled; he is again garbling the very basics of climate science.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 19, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Just wonder if you think the atmosphere is a black body?
> ...


I remember reading about black bodies and radiating. You need that. So ho does a non black body radiate?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> WeatherBELL Chief Forecaster Joe Bastardi Denies Basic Physics: ‘CO2 Cannot Cause Global Warming’
> BASTARDI: CO2 cannot cause global warming. I’ll tell you why. It doesn’t mix well with the atmosphere, for one. For two, its specific gravity is 1 1/2 times that of the rest of the atmosphere. It heats and cools much quicker. Its radiative processes are much different. So it cannot — it literally cannot cause global warming.
> 
> 
> ...


That first dude is spot on. Feel free to have the other dude present his evidence. How's that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 19, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Just wonder if you think the atmosphere is a black body?
> ...



I was talking about the corona, in reference to Same Shit Different Derps smart photon claims.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


So what happens to your cold photons do they miss hitting the object? Oh and all the other objects as well right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


*
So what happens to your cold photons do they miss hitting the object?
*
Photons don't know, and wouldn't care, what the temperature of their target was.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> WeatherBELL Chief Forecaster Joe Bastardi Denies Basic Physics: ‘CO2 Cannot Cause Global Warming’
> BASTARDI: CO2 cannot cause global warming. I’ll tell you why. It doesn’t mix well with the atmosphere, for one. For two, its specific gravity is 1 1/2 times that of the rest of the atmosphere. It heats and cools much quicker. Its radiative processes are much different. So it cannot — it literally cannot cause global warming.
> 
> 
> ...





That's what THE ACTUAL RAW DATA has said ALL ALONG...  specifically the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showing precisely NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE even as CO2 rose from 270ppm to 400... or 1 in 3000 atmospheric molecules is now CO2...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 19, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > WeatherBELL Chief Forecaster Joe Bastardi Denies Basic Physics: ‘CO2 Cannot Cause Global Warming’
> ...



Bs, You'd have to be telling me that we have seen no warming the past 150 years to say what you're saying. So we're still deep in the little ice age, right? lol Oregon use to see 3-4 times as much snow in winter during the 19th century and the winters were much colder. I could point out dozens of areas on our globe that have also without a doubt have warmed...Joe Bastardi is a ok hurricane met but he doesn't know shit about climate.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 19, 2016)

Bastardi obviously needs to retake basic physics and chemistry. Because he is spouting nonsense.


----------



## IanC (Jun 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




nothing is a perfect blackbody. there are practically countless links to blackbody definitions and lectures. I suggest you read some more of them. the wikipedia page includes this quote-



> Two bodies that are at the same temperature stay in mutual thermal equilibrium, so a body at temperature _T_ surrounded by a cloud of light at temperature _T_ on average will emit as much light into the cloud as it absorbs, following Prevost's exchange principle, which refers to radiative equilibrium. The principle of detailed balance says that in thermodynamic equilibrium every elementary process works equally in its forward and backward sense.[21][22] Prevost also showed that the emission from a body is logically determined solely by its own internal state. The causal effect of thermodynamic absorption on thermodynamic (spontaneous) emission is not direct, but is only indirect as it affects the internal state of the body. This means that at thermodynamic equilibrium the amount of every wavelength in every direction of thermal radiation emitted by a body at temperature _T_, black or not, is equal to the corresponding amount that the body absorbs because it is surrounded by light at temperature _T_.[23]



this is totally opposite to what SSDD is proposing. emission is solely determined by its own internal state. got that? no smart photons, no smart emitters.

it is interesting that quantum mechanics evolved from a 'quick fix' to make thermodynamics consistent.


----------



## Crick (Jun 25, 2016)

So, Ian, have you seen some of these new ideas?  One seems to be that CO2 absorbs radiation but doesn't emit it and eventually gets so hot that it rises by buoyancy and attains escape velocity, carrying it's little packet of thermal energy into the depths of outer space and COOLING the Earth.  This is proven by the equation E=1/2*mv^2, or so I am told.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2016)

Amazing how total ignoramouses like jc, SSDD, and LaDexter actually believe that they are smarter than all the Phd's in physics, chemistry, and geology. LOL


----------



## jc456 (Jun 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Amazing how total ignoramouses like jc, SSDD, and LaDexter actually believe that they are smarter than all the Phd's in physics, chemistry, and geology. LOL


Cause if I were one I'd have test results and so they are useless


----------



## Crick (Jun 25, 2016)

Over 12,000 peer reviewed studies have been published in the last 20 years whose results support anthropogenic global warming.

What have YOU got?


----------



## IanC (Jun 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> So, Ian, have you seen some of these new ideas?  One seems to be that CO2 absorbs radiation but doesn't emit it and eventually gets so hot that it rises by buoyancy and attains escape velocity, carrying it's little packet of thermal energy into the depths of outer space and COOLING the Earth.  This is proven by the equation E=1/2*mv^2, or so I am told.




I have scolded SSDD, jc and billybob for some of their more outrageous statements. I wish I could give them to your side.

that said, some of their statements have important ideas hidden inside them, camouflaged by bullshit. eg. gravity and solar input being the most important factors in determining surface temperature. I wish one of them would start up a thread about that sort of thing and put some effort into defending it.


----------



## Crick (Jun 26, 2016)

Gravity an input into determining surface temperature?  Could you explain that one? Atmospheric density vis-a-vis heat transfer?


----------



## IanC (Jun 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> Gravity an input into determining surface temperature?  Could you explain that one? Atmospheric density vis-a-vis heat transfer?




not my topic. I dont like to comment too much on stuff that I havent though through enough.

solar input has been stored in the atmosphere, both directly and indirectly by the surface. half the energy as kinetic and half as potential energy in the gravity field. that energy is what allows back radiation to warm the surface. there are lots of nuances that could make a big difference. 

eg Gas Laws are an idealization. so does it make a difference that the molecules are being accelerated at 9.8 m/s^2 downward to the surface? does heat flow more easily in one direction than the other?  I dont know, but it could be interesting to talk about.


----------



## Crick (Jun 26, 2016)

Where do you get half and half?  90% of that incoming solar energy is stored in the incompressible oceans.

And, as I pointed out earlier, with no net vertical motion, the gravity field is doing no work on the atmosphere.


----------



## IanC (Jun 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> Where do you get half and half?  90% of that incoming solar energy is stored in the incompressible oceans.
> 
> And, as I pointed out earlier, with no net vertical motion, the gravity field is doing no work on the atmosphere.




????

why are you bringing up oceans when we are talking about the atmosphere and the role gravity takes on it?

first off, just to get people to understand the basic principle...what would happen to the atmosphere if the solar input was cut off completely? the atmosphere would still be radiating but it would cool off quickly and start to decrease in altitude. this would continue until all the energy was dissappated into space and the gases were just a frozen crust on the surface. faint memories of physics from 40 years ago makes me think that the energy in the atmosphere was stored half and half between kinetic energy (temperature) and potential energy (height in a gravity field). feel free to correct me if I am wrong about that.

all atmospheres moderate the temperature swings, and lead to a higher average surface temp. GHGs (leave out water for now) change the temperature profile. closer to the surface the temp increases, closer to the top it is easier to radiate away heat so it is cooler.

adding water not only adds a greenhouse gas but it also adds another pathway for energy to flow via latent heat and convection.

back to gravity.... if you want to warm the atmosphere then half of the energy needed goes into increased potential energy. the atmosphere does puff up during the daytime and relaxes again at night. the gravity field is an integral part of storing energy in the atmosphere, which in turn radiates and sends some back to the surface


BTW this tack was yet another way I tried to dissuade SSDD from his smart photon theory. if the emitter and receptor have the same kinetic energy but one is higher in the gravity field, does it count towards 'energy only moves high to low states'? he, of course, never acknowledged the question.


----------



## IanC (Jun 27, 2016)

after giving it some thought, the simplistic Kinetic energy plus Potential energy = Total energy doesnt really cut it because there are other forms of energy involved such as rotational, vibrational and excitational. and the gravitational field changes strength (slightly).

as a naive first estimate, it is probably pretty good though.


----------



## Crick (Jun 27, 2016)

From hunting the net, I suspect your half and half came from discussion regarding harmonic oscillators.  PS, rotational and vibrational motions are still kinetic.  Electrical and magnetic charges are potential.


----------



## IanC (Jun 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> From hunting the net, I suspect your half and half came from discussion regarding harmonic oscillators.  PS, rotational and vibrational motions are still kinetic.  Electrical and magnetic charges are potential.




specifically I think it came from an old physics question on mercury sloshing in a u-tube, or maybe even a swing going up and down. 

there are also equations that delve into the most efficient way to store energy between K and P.  I'll try and find an example when I have time.


----------



## IanC (Jun 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> From hunting the net, I suspect your half and half came from discussion regarding harmonic oscillators.  PS, rotational and vibrational motions are still kinetic.  Electrical and magnetic charges are potential.




very interesting topic! the exchange between kinetic and potential energy is behind just about everything that happens in the atmosphere.

while I have not found a specific citation that explicitly states that for a general atmosphere half of the energy is kinetic and the other half is potential, I have seen quite a few clues that that is probably the case.

one of the more interesting ones is that Saturn's moon Titan has an atmosphere yet our Moon does not, even though their gravity is quite similar.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 29, 2016)

This is a comment on the relation of kinetic and potential energy in the atmosphere at different heights.

Calculating Kinetic Energy in an Ideal Gas - For Dummies
The total energy of an ideal gas is




The barometric pressure is





  Where h is the height. Sorry for the huge font. That's the way it comes in
The Barometric Formula

Using the Ideal Gas Law, PV = nrT, we can express the barometric pressure in terms of V and T. If we look at a specific volume Vo, say one cubic meter, for two different heights, 0 and h, the barometric pressure can be expressed as

Th (nR/Vo) = To (nR/Vo) exp(-mgh/kTh)
nR/Vo cancels on both sides of the equation. Substituting the KEtotal of the ideal gas law. The 3/2 nR will also cancel on both sides of the equation so that.
KE at height =h, T = Th = KE at height =0, T=To exp(-mgh/kTh)
This formula assumes a constant temperature at all heights, so actually To = Th.

Compare that to the easier to derive *potential energy* which is given by the *weight times height*. The two energies are not a simple linear relation.

If you want the the formula for a real atmosphere you have to use the measured lapse rate, which also affects the barometric pressure formula. To do that you have to redo the calculus to calculate the barometric formula and include a simple equation for the lapse rate, otherwise it would have to be done with a numeric integration. You are on your own.


----------

