# The pseudo science of man-made global warming...



## Rustic (Nov 29, 2016)

Great stuff, dumbass progressives in their idol Al gore come up with the funniest things... lol
predictable of crazy Cali... 

California regulates cow farts


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 29, 2016)

So, every  Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So, are we to believe an anonymous poster on a message board who has only demonstrated profound ignorance in all spheres over the scientists? LOL


----------



## Ernie S. (Nov 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> So, every  Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So, are we to believe an anonymous poster on a message board who has only demonstrated profound ignorance in all spheres over the scientists? LOL


Actually no. I don't believe a word you say, sir.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> So, every  Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So, are we to believe an anonymous poster on a message board who has only demonstrated profound ignorance in all spheres over the scientists? LOL




No every scientific society, every national academy of science and every major university have policy statements that assure that they get a place at the money trough....when the trough dries up and money gets tight except for those who are doing actual science...that would be science that can be repeated and demonstrated, those statements are likely to change....they are smart people and should be able to read the writing on the wall very quickly.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 30, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > So, every  Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So, are we to believe an anonymous poster on a message board who has only demonstrated profound ignorance in all spheres over the scientists? LOL
> ...





And these bozo's know it too........nobody could be that fucking stoopid.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > So, every  Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So, are we to believe an anonymous poster on a message board who has only demonstrated profound ignorance in all spheres over the scientists? LOL
> ...


Dear little cocksuck, so you are accusing every scientist in every nation of committing fraud or being accessory to fraud. Make sure you have plenty of tinfoil for your little hats.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 30, 2016)

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus



Ernie S. said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > So, every  Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So, are we to believe an anonymous poster on a message board who has only demonstrated profound ignorance in all spheres over the scientists? LOL
> ...


Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

*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
*SCIENCE ACADEMIES*
*International academies: Joint statement*
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10







U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11
*U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES*






U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12
*INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES*






Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14
*OTHER RESOURCES*
*List of worldwide scientific organizations*
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

*U.S. agencies*
The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.
http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/federal-agencies-adaptation.pdf

*And your links?*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Oh looky here...  a moonbat dropped a bunch of shit and claims that they prove global warming by their political statements...

Your appeals to you make believe authorities is bull shit Old Fraud.. It reminds me of an idiot who is told the bottle doesn't contain poison, the empirical evidence of the labels says it does, and yet the idiot believes the fantasy and drinks the bottle any way, cause they said it was ok and were in consensus... And they were the authorities...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 30, 2016)




----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 30, 2016)

Matthew said:


> View attachment 100472


----------



## Ernie S. (Dec 1, 2016)

Matthew said:


> View attachment 100472


How many new computer models did it take to make the data look like that?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 1, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 100472



Well now, you seem to think that the temperature for the US is going down. So why are our glaciers melting? If the graph showing a cooling is correct, why are not they expanding, rather than receding? After all, during the little ice age they did actually expand.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 1, 2016)

Ernie S. said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 100472
> ...


Well, I really suppose you could actually read some of the science and get an answer for that. However, there is zero chance of that happening. You prefer your willful ignorance and are quite proud to be a stupid jerk.


----------



## Ernie S. (Dec 1, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


I've read a lot of the so called "science" you speak of. It all relies on "computer models" designed and tweaked to provide the per-determined results.
No willful ignorance involved here, I just happen to hate Kool-Aid and blind devotion to agenda driven "science".


----------



## Esmeralda (Dec 1, 2016)

Rustic said:


> Great stuff, dumbass progressives in their idol Al gore come up with the funniest things... lol
> predictable of crazy Cali...
> 
> California regulates cow farts


You cannot call something 'pseudo science' when the vast majority of scientists believe in it.  Not when folks like Stephen Hawking believe in it.  

Prof _Stephen Hawking_ said the biggest threats to planet Earth were of our own making, including nuclear war, _*global warming *_and genetically engineered viruses. .


----------



## Esmeralda (Dec 1, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
> ...


What a moron.


----------



## Ernie S. (Dec 1, 2016)

No one is disputing the fact that the climate has warmed over the last 50 years or so, just that human activity is a significant cause. Even your "scientists" have retreated in their support. 15 years ago, we were all going to die from Anthropogenic Global Warming. These days, it's simply "Climate Change". No more "Anthropogenic" and no more "Warming", but still the same focus on crippling the coal industry and demonizing conventional energy companies altogether.


----------



## Ernie S. (Dec 1, 2016)

Esmeralda said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Old Rocks? I agree.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Dear little cocksuck, so you are accusing every scientist in every nation of committing fraud or being accessory to fraud. Make sure you have plenty of tinfoil for your little hats.



Poor rocks...reduced to nothing but name calling....I am still waiting for that observed, measured, quantified, empirical data supporting the A in AGW....been waiting for decades now and suppose the wait will go on just as long.

To bad you follow such an expensive religion, what with the funding for said religion coming to a close....perhaps we can get on to some real science now and find out what factors actually drive the climate and put our resources into adaptation, which is our only realistic response to the climate since we have no power over it whatsoever.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 1, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...




Going down?


Can you read a fucking graph?


The glaciers propaganda old rocks have been melting since the last ice age
.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 1, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



It is like they believe if they repeat the propaganda enough times that it will become true....


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 1, 2016)

SSDD said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






Old rocks is great at that no matter how I smash him he will come back and post the same thing over and over again..

Its starting to get pathetic to watch


.


----------



## Esmeralda (Dec 1, 2016)

Ernie S. said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Très amusant

It's BillyBob (and the like) who is the moron,


----------



## Rustic (Dec 1, 2016)

Esmeralda said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Great stuff, dumbass progressives in their idol Al gore come up with the funniest things... lol
> ...


Watch out for cow farts...


----------



## Crick (Dec 2, 2016)

On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study?  Blog posts from right wing journalists?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 2, 2016)

Crick,

Liberterianism is based on one holding their opinion above everyone else on earth no matter what. It is hatred of institutions, government and anything to do with civilization.

The libertarian simply says something and that is enough to make he/she or it believe that they have won. It will end up destroying this country if we don't beat it back,


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study?  Blog posts from right wing journalists?




They should of saved their time, money and just of asked a 2nd grader he would of told them "the climate has always changed"


That money would of been better spent on infrastructure. Builiding power plants in thirld world countries bringing clean water to africa. So much better then trying to convince man a warmer earth is worse then a New ice age.

.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 2, 2016)

Ernie S. said:


> No one is disputing the fact that the climate has warmed over the last 50 years or so



You mean besides half of your denier brethren?

Half of you claim there's no warming, and that an ice age is around the corner.

Half of you claim there is warming, but it's all natural.

You denier cultists all need to get together and settle on a single kook conspiracy theory, instead of embracing multiple kook conspiracy theories that all contradict each other. That looks really bad, the way you're all over the map with your loopy conspiracy babbling.


----------



## Ernie S. (Dec 2, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > No one is disputing the fact that the climate has warmed over the last 50 years or so
> ...


It depends on where you start from. I started 50 years ago. If memory serves, there has been some increase, most of which can be explained by the Soviet Union shutting down hundreds of weather stations in Siberia.
If we go back 20 years, there has been either no increase, or a slight decrease, depending on who's computer model produces the results.


----------



## Ernie S. (Dec 2, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Crick,
> 
> Liberterianism is based on one holding their opinion above everyone else on earth no matter what. It is hatred of institutions, government and anything to do with civilization.
> 
> The libertarian simply says something and that is enough to make he/she or it believe that they have won. It will end up destroying this country if we don't beat it back,


This is who Reagan was referring to when he said, "It's not that our Liberal friends are ignorant, it's that they know so much that isn't so.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 2, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > No one is disputing the fact that the climate has warmed over the last 50 years or so
> ...




How about you study the climate on the earth the past billions of years before you make that statement?



Its called the Earths Climate...since when has it ever been stable ?   

Only in your fairy tale propaganda world.

.


----------



## Ernie S. (Dec 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study?  Blog posts from right wing journalists?


On the basis that their funding is contingent on them arriving at a predetermined result.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 2, 2016)

Ernie S. said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study?  Blog posts from right wing journalists?
> ...



Lol, things that are a national security threat and economic threat to our nation must be studied.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 2, 2016)

Ernie S. said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study?  Blog posts from right wing journalists?
> ...



I wonder if their real goal is encasing the world in one huge polycarbonite bubble...and in one super secerete location there is only one thermoset set exactly at 67.5 degrees ...to bad world live with it


----------



## ding (Dec 2, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > No one is disputing the fact that the climate has warmed over the last 50 years or so
> ...


You forgot about the ones who believe it part of the natural climate of an interglacial cycle.  I am feeling a bit left out, pussycat.


----------



## Ernie S. (Dec 2, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


One of the largest economic threats our nation faces today is your desire to cripple the conventional energy sector before there is a viable alternative. The motive of the AGW cult escapes me other than I see a desire by a new would be elite to replace the wealthy oil and coal folks that generally support Conservative values with Solyndra/Tesla types that want the government to invest in the immature technology and grant tax incentives they will use to become Liberal Carnages, Rockefellers and Fords.
Invest your own money to develop your technology. Bring it to market when it can stand on it's own without subsidies and if you are more efficient, more reliable, cleaner and safer, you will replace carbon based energy production like gasoline replaced steam.


----------



## Ernie S. (Dec 2, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


67.5 is fine if you don't want polar bears, reindeer, peanut butter, bananas or cotton. What these people can't tell you is what is the ideal temperature or how much rain we should have. It's like they've decided that the average temperature should be what it was in, say March 31, 1948, the date of their titular messiah's birth. why not set our benchmark at 500 million years ago when global temperature was about 8 degrees higher and life went through an explosion of diversity. Obviously global temperatures were more favorable for more species then than at any time since.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 3, 2016)

Esmeralda said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Esmeralda said:
> ...


I see the parrot now has a parrot of his own.... Esmerelda want a cracker?   moron!


----------



## ding (Dec 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study?  Blog posts from right wing journalists?


Let's see...  this...

"One of the most vivid predictions of global warming theory is a “hotspot” in the tropical upper troposphere, where increased tropical convection responding to warming sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is supposed to cause enhanced warming in the upper troposphere.

The trouble is that radiosonde (weather ballons) and satellites have failed to show evidence of a hotspot forming in recent decades. Instead, upper tropospheric warming approximately the same as surface warming has been observed...."






"...Note that the linear warming trend in the UT product (+0.07 C/decade, bright red trend line) is less than the HadSST3 sea surface temperature trend (light green, +0.10 C/decade) for the same 20N-20S latitude band, whereas theory would suggest it should be about twice as large (+0.20 C/decade).

And what is really striking in the above plot is how strong the climate models’ average warming trend over the tropical oceans is in the upper troposphere (+0.35 C/decade, dark red), which I calculate to be about 1.89 times the models’ average surface trend (+0.19 C/decade, dark green). This ratio of 1.89 is based upon the UT weighting function applied to the model average temperature trend profile from the surface to 100 mb (16 km) altitude.

_So, what we see is that the models are off by about a factor of 2 on surface warming, but maybe by a factor of 5 (!) for upper tropospheric warming._

This is all preliminary, of course, since we still must submit our Version 6 paper for publication. So, make of it what you will.

But I am increasingly convinced that the hotspot really has gone missing. And the reason why (I still believe) is most likely related to water vapor feedback and precipitation processes, which largely govern the total heat budget of the free-troposphere (the layer above the turbulently mixed boundary layer).

I believe the missing hotspot is indirect evidence that upper tropospheric water vapor is not increasing, and so upper tropospheric water vapor (the most important layer for water vapor feedback) is not amplifying warming from increasing CO2. The fact that UT warming is indeed amplified — by about a factor of 2 — during El Nino events in the above plot might be related to the relatively short time scales involved, since convective heating and radiative cooling are far out of balance during short term variations, but are much closer to being balanced in the long-term with global warming.

The lack of positive water vapor feedback is an especially controversial assertion to make, given that (1) SSM/I satellite measurements of water vapor have indeed been increasing in lock-step with SST warming, and (2) probably a unanimous opinion in the IPCC climate community that water vapor feedback is positive.

But the SSM/I measurements are largely insensitive to the very low levels of upper tropospheric water vapor, so they can’t tell us anything about upper tropospheric vapor. And while lower-tropospherc water vapor is governed mostly by SST, upper tropospheric vapor is governed by precipitation processes, and we don’t even understand how those might change with warming, let alone have those physics included in climate models.

Instead, I suspect the models have been adjusted so that precipitation systems detrain more water vapor into the upper troposphere with warming, simply because that’s what we see on short time scales, say during El Nino events, and so the convective parameterizations in the models are adjusted to meet that expectation..."

New Satellite Upper Troposphere Product: Still No Tropical “Hotspot” « Roy Spencer, PhD


----------



## ding (Dec 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study?  Blog posts from right wing journalists?


And this...

Global Warming : Feature Articles

Which shows that our TEMPERATURE today is still within the normal range of an interglacial cycle and that during interglacial cycles there is a saw tooth behavior of temperatures where the temperature can fall and then increase just like we have seen for the past 1000 years.

Wow... doesn't that look like we have a problem!!!!






Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 400,000 years.


----------



## ding (Dec 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study?  Blog posts from right wing journalists?


And this...

Which shows that the modern world we live in is an icehouse and that it is geologically speaking rare.

The world we live in today is an icehouse world. It is characterized by bipolar glaciation. 








We think of this as normal, but it's not. For most of the past 55 million years our planet was a greenhouse world. 








Bipolar glaciation is geologically rare, possibly unique. No other previous instance of bipolar glaciation has been recorded in the geologic record. 







The icehouse world we live in today is characterized by glacial - interglacial cycles and a high latitudinal thermal gradient.






The modern icehouse world we live in today differed strongly from the greenhouse world in that the greenhouse world did not have bipolar glaciation and had a low latitude thermal gradient.


----------



## ding (Dec 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study?  Blog posts from right wing journalists?


And this...

Which explains the trigger for the glacial and interglacial cycles.


----------



## ding (Dec 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study?  Blog posts from right wing journalists?


And this...

Which explains the conditions necessary for the glacial-interglacial cycles were our poles being isolated from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2.

The oxygen isotope curve is well established for the Cenozoic and shows that the trend is for a COOLING earth. Over the last 5 million years there has been rapid cooling. 












Climate models predict that extensive glaciation cannot occur at the South Pole until atmospheric CO2 reaches 750 ppm. Climate models predict that extensive glaciation cannot occur at the North Pole until atmospheric CO2 reaches 250 ppm.







Five million years ago the earth started going through glacial / interglacial cycles. The glacial / interglacial cycles of the past 3 million years were triggered by Milankovitch cycles. But before the glacial cycle could be triggered, two conditions needed to be met; the north and south poles had to be isolated from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2 needed to be 400 ppm or less. These conditions still exist today.







The north pole is isolated by landmasses. The south pole is isolated because of Antarctica.


----------



## Pete7469 (Dec 3, 2016)

Ernie S. said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > So, every  Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So, are we to believe an anonymous poster on a message board who has only demonstrated profound ignorance in all spheres over the scientists? LOL
> ...



That's a good policy


----------



## ding (Dec 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study?  Blog posts from right wing journalists?


And this...

Which establishes that EXTENSIVE northern hemisphere glaciation cannot occur until 280 ppm but EXTENSIVE Antarctic glaciation occurs at 750 ppm.

For major bipolar glaciation to have occurred at Oi-1, CO2 would first have to cross the Antarctic glaciation threshold (,750 p.p.m.v.) and then fall more than 400 p.p.m.v. within ,200 kyr to reach the Northern Hemisphere threshold (Fig. 4). Increased sea ice and upwelling in the Southern Ocean 13,29 and falling sea level 14 could have acted as feedbacks accelerating CO2 drawdown at the time of Oi-1.This is supported by CO2 proxy records and carbon-cycle model results showing a drop in CO2 across the Eocene/Oligocene transition10,13,14, but none of these reconstructions reach the low levels required for Northern Hemisphere glaciation. We therefore conclude that major bipolar glaciation at the Eocene/Oligocene transition is unlikely, and Mg/Ca-based estimates of deep-sea temperatures across the boundary 5 are unreliable. Our findings lend support to the hypothesis that the 1-km deepening of the carbonate compensation depth and the associated carbonate ion effect on deep-water calcite mask a cooling signal in the Mg/Ca records 4,5. Therefore, the observed isotope shift at Oi-1 is best explained by Antarctic glaciation 22 accompanied by 4.0 uC of cooling in the deep sea or slightly less (,3.3 uC) if there was additional ice growth on West Antarctica (see Methods and Supplementary Information). This explanation is in better agreement with sequence stratigraphic estimates of sea-level fall at Oi-1(70 620 m)19,20 equivalent to 70–120% of modern Antarctic ice volume, and coupled GCM/ice-sheet simulations showing 2–5 uC cooling and expanding sea ice in the Southern Ocean in response to Antarctic glaciation 29. Additional support for ocean cooling is provided by new records from Tanzania 16 and the Gulf of Mexico 15, where Mg/Ca temperature estimates show ,2.5 uC cooling in shallow, continental shelf settings during the first step of the Eocene/Oligocene transition.

In summary, our model results show that the Northern Hemisphere contained glaciers and small, isolated ice caps in high elevations through much of the Cenozoic, especially during favourable orbital periods (Fig. 3a–c). However, major continental-scale Northern Hemisphere glaciation at or before the Oi-1 event (33.6Myr) is unlikely, in keeping with recently published high-resolution Eocene no definitive evidence of widespread northern-hemispheric glaciation exists before ,2.7 Myr ago, pre-Pliocene records from subsequently glaciated high northern latitudes are generally lacking. More highly resolved CO2 records focusing on specific events, along with additional geological information from high northern latitudes, will help to unravel the Cenozoic evolution of the cryosphere. According to these results, this evolution may have included an episodic northern-hemispheric ice component for the past 23 million years.

Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 3, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




Of course including liberal logic, that wants to cause a world wide depression to try to prevent something that will happen anyways.

Just so it makes them "feel good"


----------



## ding (Dec 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> On what basis do you reject the work of thousands of scientists over decades of research and study?  Blog posts from right wing journalists?


And this...

Which shows that:

1. The temperature fell 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing.

2. Antarctic thawing occurred while CO2 values dropped at the OI/Mio transition and never fell below levels of the OI.

3. The glacial-interglacial cycles of the past 500,000 years began while atmospheric CO2 was greater than 400 ppm.

4. It took 12 million years for the temperature to fall to the temperature predicted by radiative forcing of CO2.


----------



## Old Yeller (Dec 3, 2016)

I don't like a lot of facts and stuff.  Makes me too tired. I keep a pile of pallets and old tires burning out back to help out crop growers.  I don't get headaches (bless the Lord) I just get tired, very tired. GW facts make me tired.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 3, 2016)

Ding,
All those charts and graphs show a lot of work in compiling the data and in laying out the graphics. Did you do all that yourself or did they come from some reference. If it's the latter it would be very thoughtful if you cited the sources of the information and graphics.


----------



## ding (Dec 3, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Ding,
> All those charts and graphs show a lot of work in compiling the data and in laying out the graphics. Did you do all that yourself or did they come from some reference. If it's the latter it would be very thoughtful if you cited the sources of the information and graphics.


No.  I got them from a colleague.  I have it on a pdf.  Let me look to see if it is available online.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 4, 2016)

Ernie S. said:


> It depends on where you start from. I started 50 years ago. If memory serves, there has been some increase, most of which can be explained by the Soviet Union shutting down hundreds of weather stations in Siberia.



I'm sure you recall many of the conspiracy theories that your favorite fake news sits have fed to you. They're all fictional, but then, this is the post-truth world, where much of the population believes that truth is whatever their political party defines it to be, no matter what the evidence says.



> If we go back 20 years, there has been either no increase, or a slight decrease, depending on who's computer model produces the results.



Good example. That claim is flatly by the directly measured data, but much of the population still believes it, solely because of their politics. The real data -- based on these things called "thermometers" that directly measure "temperature", with no models required -- shows a steady strong warming for the past 50 years.






[/QUOTE]


----------



## mamooth (Dec 4, 2016)

ding said:


> Which shows that the modern world we live in is an icehouse and that it is geologically speaking rare.



So?

What does that have to do with the current sudden increase in temperatures now, which there is no natural explanation for?

Your logic fails. Your premise, that "the climate system of the past few million years is different", in no way supports your conclusion, that "current warming must be natural."


----------



## mamooth (Dec 4, 2016)

ding said:


> 1. The temperature fell 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing.



As nobody ever claimed CO2 was the only driver of temperature, this post is also a total logic failure.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 4, 2016)

ding said:


> Which shows that our TEMPERATURE today is still within the normal range of an interglacial cycle and that during interglacial cycles there is a saw tooth behavior of temperatures where the temperature can fall and then increase just like we have seen for the past 1000 years.



And another logic failure.

"It was warmer in the past" in no way disproves "humans are causing fast warming right now".

It also ignores the directly measured evidence that shows greenhouse gases to be the cause of the current fast warming. Increased backradiation, stratospheric cooling, a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the GHG emission bands. There's no natural explanation for any of that, which rules out natural cycles as a cause of current warming.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 4, 2016)

ding said:


> Let's see...  this...
> "One of the most vivid predictions of global warming theory is a “hotspot” in the tropical upper troposphere, where increased tropical convection responding to warming sea surface temperatures (SSTs) is supposed to cause enhanced warming in the upper troposphere.




Which has been observed. Spencer's science there is not well regarded. Rather than cult-and-paste a giant load of stuff, I'll link to some in-depth discussions.

Understanding the significance of the tropospheric hot spot

Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere

Point is, that was sort of a cherrypicking fallacy on your part. You went with a single scientist's opinion, and ignored the preponderance of evidence.


----------



## ding (Dec 4, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Which shows that the modern world we live in is an icehouse and that it is geologically speaking rare.
> ...


But there is an explanation.  We are in an interglacial cycle. 

Wow... doesn't that look like we have a problem!!!!






Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 400,000 years.  Now do you understand?


----------



## ding (Dec 4, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Let's see...  this...
> ...


There was zero cherry picking.  This is the actual data.  There is no hot spot.  They said there would be.  It's not there.  If you really believe that it has been cherry picked and that you have proven anything with two lnks, then it shouldn't be too hard for you to show me a plot of the data back to 1979, should it?  Put up or shut up.  Now run away and hide.  

Spencer's science is not well regarded?  Are you smoking crack?  Whose name do you see referenced on the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory's page on MSU (Microwave Sounding Unit) Daily Troposphere Temperatures and Precipitation website page?

ESRL                       : PSD              : MSU Daily Troposphere Temperatures and Precipitation


----------



## ding (Dec 4, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > 1. The temperature fell 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing.
> ...


Then why are you claiming that today?


----------



## ding (Dec 4, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Which shows that our TEMPERATURE today is still within the normal range of an interglacial cycle and that during interglacial cycles there is a saw tooth behavior of temperatures where the temperature can fall and then increase just like we have seen for the past 1000 years.
> ...


I thought you were an engineer?   We are in an interglacial cycle.  If you look at the data everything is still within that norm.  The temperature increase of the last 200 years is normal.  The declining temperature for 1800 years is normal.  Look at the graphs.  See the saw tooth behaviors on the present interglacial cycle.  Have you not noticed how you are the only one arguing this?  Do you know why?  Because the others are smart enough to know better.


----------



## ding (Dec 4, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Which shows that our TEMPERATURE today is still within the normal range of an interglacial cycle and that during interglacial cycles there is a saw tooth behavior of temperatures where the temperature can fall and then increase just like we have seen for the past 1000 years.
> ...


There is no direct evidence that CO2 is the cause for the temperature increase of the past 200 years.  How long do you believe it takes for CO2 to heat up our planet?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 4, 2016)

I am laughing at ding for thinking the green house affect is pseudo science. Somehow I am the dumb one? reallly??? lol, lol, lol


----------



## Ernie S. (Dec 5, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > It depends on where you start from. I started 50 years ago. If memory serves, there has been some increase, most of which can be explained by the Soviet Union shutting down hundreds of weather stations in Siberia.
> ...


[/QUOTE]So, you ignore the point I made and post more fake data. OMG!!!! your graph looks like a hockey stick!


----------



## Ernie S. (Dec 5, 2016)

Matthew said:


> I am laughing at ding for thinking the green house affect is pseudo science. Somehow I am the dumb one? reallly??? lol, lol, lol


Show me a controlled experiment with results that can be duplicated.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 5, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > 1. The temperature fell 10 million years ago while CO2 was increasing.
> ...



Interesting....now that the wheels are falling off the AGW crazy train, you seem to forget that you wackos have been claiming that it is the primary control knob for climate.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 5, 2016)

mamooth said:


> "It was warmer in the past" in no way disproves "humans are causing fast warming right now".



There is no "fast warming" right now...there is no proxy study which suggests that the present is in any way warming at an unprecedented rate...Greenland ice core data show periods which warmed much faster and became warmer than the present.



mamooth said:


> It also ignores the directly measured evidence that shows greenhouse gases to be the cause of the current fast warming.




Sorry hairball...there is no "directly measured" anything that supports the claim that CO2 emissions are causing any warming what so ever...but if you feel that there are such measurements, feel free to post them.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 5, 2016)

Matthew said:


> I am laughing at ding for thinking the green house affect is pseudo science. Somehow I am the dumb one? reallly??? lol, lol, lol




Got any actual quantified measurement of a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science?....of course you don't...nor will you ever....and yes, since you believe in it even though it has never been measured...you are the dumb one...


----------



## Crick (Dec 5, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
> ...



I love it.  The retired cop who claims to be an "atmospheric physicist" rejects the expertise of the world's national science organizations.  The irony is incredible.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 5, 2016)

Crick said:


> I love it.  The retired cop who claims to be an "atmospheric physicist" rejects the expertise of the world's national science organizations.  The irony is incredible.



Says the custodial engineer who claims to be an ocean engineer but can 't make heads or tails from the simplest of graphs....and who, when all is said and done has nothing more than a logically fallacious appeal to authority to fall back on.


----------



## Crick (Dec 5, 2016)

Says the man with the intelligent photons and matter that routinely violates special relativity.


----------



## ding (Dec 5, 2016)

Matthew said:


> I am laughing at ding for thinking the green house affect is pseudo science. Somehow I am the dumb one? reallly??? lol, lol, lol


You are a moron. I did not say that there was no greenhouse effect.  I said the rise in CO2 has not been proven to be the cause of our temperature increase.  The cause of that is that we are in a an interglacial cycle.


----------



## basquebromance (Dec 5, 2016)

the computer models of the global warming alarmists predicted that the Earth would warm dramatically. there's 1 little problem: the satellites that actually measure the temperature, they have recorded no significant warming whatsoever for the last 18 years!


----------



## ding (Dec 5, 2016)

basquebromance said:


> the computer models of the global warming alarmists predicted that the Earth would warm dramatically. there's 1 little problem: the satellites that actually measure the temperature, they have recorded no significant warming whatsoever for the last 18 years!


Climate is an extremely complex phenomenon to model.  They don't understand the role water vapor plays. The "A" series forecasts have unrealistic CO2 emission forecasts that yield unrealistic forecasts for atmospheric CO2 using models which don't properly model feedback and consistently underpredict associated temperature and they have groupthink mentality.  What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 5, 2016)

Crick said:


> Says the man with the intelligent photons and matter that routinely violates special relativity.




You guys never stop cracking me up...Imagine, thinking that a rock must be intelligent in order to know to fall down when it is dropped...that chemicals must be intelligent in order to know what to react with and how to react with those that they do react with...and that energy must be intelligent to know that it can not move from cool to warm...what a strange world you have invented for yourself....where objects must possess intelligence in order to obey the laws of physics.  Tell me some more about your wacky world...


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 5, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Tell me some more about your wacky world...


No, you tell us about your world. Why thermal photons can't move from colder objects to warmer objects. There is no scientific reason for that. Photons from thermal radiation can go anywhere. You have no observable measurable repeatable experiment that says they don't. All you have are opinions that science doesn't share.


----------



## IanC (Dec 5, 2016)

SSDD said:


> ...that chemicals must be intelligent in order to know what to react with and how to react with those that they do react with...and that energy must be intelligent to know that it can not move from cool to warm...what a strange world you have invented for yourself....where objects must possess intelligence in order to obey the laws of physics.  Tell me some more about your wacky world...



chemical reactions??? hahahahaha. bad example. they are highly sensitive to local conditions. and to atomic scale interactions. a catalyst can hold molecules in a particular orientation that multiplies reaction rates by orders of magnitude.

radiation detectors also use particular reactions to specific substances and conditions to detect certain types of radiation.

SSDD's confusion lies in his misunderstanding of single atomic scale interactions, and the statistical average of myriad different atomic scale interactions. any predisposition to one favoured result will quickly escalate to overwhelming statistical certainty given the huge numbers involved. a 51-49% split repeated a billion times is a statistical certainty. but any single interration is still only 51-49%. SSDD thinks the statistical certainty means that only the favoured result is possible for all interactions.

radiation is released in all directions. it cannot be altered until it reacts with matter. single photon energy is constantly going in both (all) directions, net energy (heat) only goes in the direction of warm to cool.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 5, 2016)

ding said:


> But there is an explanation.  We are in an interglacial cycle



You don't seem to understand anything about how glacial cycles work. Ice ages end with a fast warmup, then go into a slow cooldown into the next ice age. The warmup ended 6000 years ago. The world had been slowly cooling ever since. That is, until around 1970, when temperatures started spiking up, in opposition to the natural cycle of cooling.

So, can you tell us what natural forces are causing the sudden fast rise in temperatures? Again, it's clearly not the glacial cycles, as those are trying to cause cooling now.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 5, 2016)

ding said:


> There is no direct evidence that CO2 is the cause for the temperature increase of the past 200 years.



That's completely wrong. Stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, and the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the greenhouse gas bands are all direct evidence that the current warming is caused by greenhouse gases.

Also, the world hasn't been warming for 200 years. More like 50 years.



> How long do you believe it takes for CO2 to heat up our planet?



Events are felt on decadal scales now. For example, the CO2 increase resulting from the worldwide post-WW2 industrial boom resulted in heating visible by around 1970.  We're seeing the heating effect of old CO2 now, and we're piling more CO2 on top of it, to cause more heating in the future.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 5, 2016)

ding said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > As nobody ever claimed CO2 was the only driver of temperature, this post is also a total logic failure.
> ...



We're not. Why are you making up such an absurd claim?

Try to argue against what people actually say, instead of what you wish they said, or what someone told you they said.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 5, 2016)

ding said:


> There was zero cherry picking.



When there's gobs of data out there, and you deliberately ignore it all in favor of one data point that disagrees with all the other, that's textbook cherrypicking. It's what you did.



> This is the actual data.



No, it's Spencer's loopy interpretation of the data, which most scientists say is bad science.



> There is no hot spot.  They said there would be.  It's not there.



Just about every scientist in the world says you're wrong, as does the vast preponderance of the data. Refusing to look at the data won't make it go away.



> If you really believe that it has been cherry picked and that you have proven anything with two lnks, then it shouldn't be too hard for you to show me a plot of the data back to 1979, should it?  Put up or shut up.  Now run away and hide.



It's funny, that you think requests for data will make us hide. You don't seem to get that we're not like you, and that we can back up everything we say.

This is from Thorne (2008), and it summarizes the decadal trends of various measurement types. They show the upper troposphere warming more strongly than the surface. The tropospheric hot spot, that is.






The data is out there, hundreds of pages of it. Go look at it. I've given you starting points, but there are limits to the handholding we're willing to do.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 5, 2016)

Ernie S. said:


> Show me a controlled experiment with results that can be duplicated.



There are hundreds of lab experiments showing the absorption spectrum of CO2. I suggest you check out the HITRAN database, which lists them in its sources.

Now, if you're saying we need to have a planet-scale experiment, that's pretty dumb. It's not possible to set up a planet-scale experiment, being we don't have spare planets to use as controls.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 5, 2016)

basquebromance said:


> the computer models of the global warming alarmists predicted that the Earth would warm dramatically. there's 1 little problem: the satellites that actually measure the temperature, they have recorded no significant warming whatsoever for the last 18 years!



That's another fine example of the complete fiction that poiltical cultists fall for in the post-truth world.  The cult has told them an absolutely absurd story is true, so the culitsts believe without question, and react with shrieking hostility at anyone who points out they've fallen for a fiction.

Here's the actual satellite data, as compared to the faked and fudged data that your cult shows you. If you think that shows no warming, you're far too addled and confused to be wasting the time of the grownups.







Oh, also note that the author of TLT 3.3 says not to use it, because it has a known cooling bias. Hence, deniers use it exclusively, even though the author of it says not to use it because it has a known cooling bias.

Now, at this point, you have a choice to make. Ask your cult leaders why they lied to you, or run back to them, drop to your knees, lick their boots and beg for more lies. We know you'll choose the latter. Your type always does.


----------



## ding (Dec 5, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > But there is an explanation.  We are in an interglacial cycle
> ...


Then please educate me on how glacial cycles work.  Why did the ice age start?  Why did the ice age end?  Why was there a saw tooth behavior on both sides of the cycles?  Because it is you who does not apparently understand how glacial-interglacial cycles work if you are ignoring the saw tooth temperature change data at the transition periods.  We are in a transition from glacial to interglacial and are on the third spike of the transition.


----------



## ding (Dec 5, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > There is no direct evidence that CO2 is the cause for the temperature increase of the past 200 years.
> ...


And yet how do you explain that the present temperature profile matches the previous four interglacial temperature profiles?

Wow... doesn't that look like we have a problem!!!!







Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 400,000 years. Now do you understand?


----------



## ding (Dec 5, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > There is no direct evidence that CO2 is the cause for the temperature increase of the past 200 years.
> ...


Not according to NASA...  Looks like 200 years to me.  Maybe that's why you are wrong about everything else.

Can you show me your radiative forcing calcs from post WWII industrial CO2 levels (1970) that demonstrate a match for observed associated temperature gain?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 5, 2016)

IanC said:


> chemical reactions??? hahahahaha. bad example. they are highly sensitive to local conditions. and to atomic scale interactions. a catalyst can hold molecules in a particular orientation that multiplies reaction rates by orders of magnitude.



So you are saying that they must be in the mood to react?




IanC said:


> SSDD's confusion lies in his misunderstanding of single atomic scale interactions, and the statistical average of myriad different atomic scale interactions.



And ian's confusion lies in thinking that we actually understand single atomic scale interactions enough to make any sort of definitive statement...we don't...at this time, what we have are stories which do little more than fill in and attempt to jibe with observations.



IanC said:


> radiation is released in all directions. it cannot be altered until it reacts with matter. single photon energy is constantly going in both (all) directions, net energy (heat) only goes in the direction of warm to cool.



So you say...except it isn't...it doesn't move from cool to warm and no observation has ever been made that suggests otherwise.


----------



## Crick (Dec 5, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > chemical reactions??? hahahahaha. bad example. they are highly sensitive to local conditions. and to atomic scale interactions. a catalyst can hold molecules in a particular orientation that multiplies reaction rates by orders of magnitude.
> ...



You need to stop thinking that the world's scientists have any of the intellectual limitations under which you suffer.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 6, 2016)

Crick said:


> You need to stop thinking that the world's scientists have any of the intellectual limitations under which you suffer.



I am not speaking of intellectual limitations..I am speaking of physical limitations...we don't know what happens in the realm of single atomic scale interactions because we lack the physical ability to see what is happening...instead, we use imagination to tell a story that jibes with what we can see...which is much like the 3 blind men describing an elephant.

You, and those like you who deify science need to wake up and realize that scientists are just folks who put on their pants one leg at a time, have all manner of things on their minds at all times, have mortgages and other financial responsibilities, and work in a climate that demands that they publish or perish and if what they publish isn't politically correct, without regard to its scientific viability, they can also perish.

And you labor under far more burdensome intellectual limitations than I, primarily because you are not what you claim to be....it must be stressful to keep up the pretense of being an engineer when you can't even make sense of a simple graph....and you lack critical thinking skills because you are not skeptical...you accept what you are told and then parrot it whenever your religion is questioned....those are crippling intellectual limitations.


----------



## Crick (Dec 6, 2016)

You need to realize that not only do scientists not suffer under your serious intellectual shortcomings, very few people in the general population do.  You haven't demonstrated the scientific wherewithal to correct a second grade school teacher, much less the vast majority of the world's PhD climate scientists.

The most basic examination of mainstream science versus AGW denialism clearly demonstrates which is practicing science and which is composed entirely of ignorant lies.  Guess where you fall SID?


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 6, 2016)

SSDD said:


> [
> 
> You, and those like you who deify science need to wake up and realize that scientists are just folks who put on their pants one leg at a time, have all manner of things on their minds at all times, have mortgages and other financial responsibilities, and work in a climate that demands that they publish or perish and if what they publish isn't politically correct, without regard to its scientific viability, they can also perish.



what a load of shit. Your post reeks of "i haven't a clue so I'll just fake news best I can." Sorry, I know several scientists. A few who work in climate change. They laugh at this shit you deniers spout on about (they sometimes cry too, out of shear frustration). If you think scientists "put on their pants one leg at a time, and worry about what others think of their findings" you're a fucking moron. I won't even go into the amount of conspiracy theories that would need to be true and of how they would all have to meet every single day and discuss how they are ALL on the same page every day of the week just to 'put one over' on your fucking morons.

I also love how the climate deniers - and not you because you're just an acolyte - I'm talking the the coal companies, oil companies etc who pay for you idiots (even though you don't realise it) to spout their BS, while all the while they're lining their pockets. Because believe me, the only thing they give a shit about is lining their pockets. All they need are silly little morons like you spouting their shit, and they just sit back rolling in the dosh....


----------



## SSDD (Dec 6, 2016)

Crick said:


> You need to realize that not only do scientists not suffer under your serious intellectual shortcomings, very few people in the general population do.  You haven't demonstrated the scientific wherewithal to correct a second grade school teacher, much less the vast majority of the world's PhD climate scientists.



So your claim is that we can, in fact, actually see and observe what is happening at the level of single atom interactions?



Crick said:


> The most basic examination of mainstream science versus AGW denialism clearly demonstrates which is practicing science and which is composed entirely of ignorant lies.  Guess where you fall SID?



What you fail to grasp, crick, is that where new science is concerned, the mainstream is damned near always wrong...and when it is being driven by money and politics, it has a 100% chance of being wrong....last time politics drove science to a level even close to the level that climate science is being driven, it gave us eugenics.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 6, 2016)

Crick said:


> You need to realize that not only do scientists not suffer under your serious intellectual shortcomings, very few people in the general population do.  You haven't demonstrated the scientific wherewithal to correct a second grade school teacher, much less the vast majority of the world's PhD climate scientists.
> 
> The most basic examination of mainstream science versus AGW denialism clearly demonstrates which is practicing science and which is composed entirely of ignorant lies.  Guess where you fall SID?



I so wish there was some experiment where you could put these fucking idiots in a situation where they could see the end result of their folly, and the rest of us norms could be in a similar experiment. How long before they would run out of air, or get melanoma, or their lives go to hell in a hand basket.

It would be great to see if somebody like Bill Gates would sponsor such an experiment how many of these loons would take up the offer. I would especially open it up to the chairs, CEOs, company presidents of oil companies an the like. I wonder how many would take up the offer.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 6, 2016)

SSDD said:


> the mainstream is damned near always wrong...



Prove it or shut the fuck up. There is no gravity? You can live in space in a vacuum? you can breath underwater unaided? The ozone layer over the Antarctic starting getting smaller after the reduction of HCFCs was just a coincidence once we stopped putting that shit in the atmosphere?

C'mon big mouth. Go to NASA and demand you go on the next mission to space. Once there take off your space suit and jump into space, then explain to me how the mainstream is damned near always wrong.

Give us your qualifications. I'm sick of you dipshits spreading fake news on websites because you have an opinion. Prove your shit or shut the fuck up.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 6, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> what a load of shit. Your post reeks of "i haven't a clue so I'll just fake news best I can." Sorry, I know several scientists. A few who work in climate change.



So do I...what's your point?....You think climate scientists wear capes and tights?  they don't... 



Dr Grump said:


> They laugh at this shit you deniers spout on about (they sometimes cry too, out of shear frustration). If you think scientists "put on their pants one leg at a time, and worry about what others think of their findings" you're a fucking moron. I won't even go into the amount of conspiracy theories that would need to be true and of how they would all have to meet every single day and discuss how they are ALL on the same page every day of the week just to 'put one over' on your fucking morons.



Tell you what Dr. Grump...since you "know" some climate scientists, perhaps you might ask of them the same thing I have been asking for decades now and have yet to get a rational answer....Ask your climate scientist friends to please give you a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the claim that mankind's CO2 emissions are altering the global climate that you can take back to this discussion board to make a skeptic your bitch...Here is what is going to happen when you ask, if you have the balls, and if you actually know some climate scientists....you are going to first get a stupid look while they riffle their brains to see if they can think of any such evidence in existence...then you will get some complicated "explanations"...and double talk...and lectures....what you won't get is a single shred of observed, measured, quantified,empirical data that supports the claim that mankind's CO2 emissions are altering the global climate...and then you will either be an adult and come back here and admit that they had nothing...or you will disappear...or you will come back doing the same shuck and jive making claims of consensus as the rest of the warmer wackaloons on this thread.

Good luck...although I already know the outcome...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 6, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> Prove it or shut the fuck up. There is no gravity? You can live in space in a vacuum? you can breath underwater unaided? The ozone layer over the Antarctic starting getting smaller after the reduction of HCFCs was just a coincidence once we stopped putting that shit in the atmosphere?



Clearly you don't spend much time looking at mainstream science through history...Here, lets take a look at just some of the instances where mainstream science, and the consensus has been wrong.

Spontaneous generation -a principle regarding the spontaneous generation of complex life from inanimate matter,
Transmutation of species and Inheritance of acquired characteristics-  Early evolutionary theory
Maternal impression - the theory that the mother's thoughts created birth defects
Miasma theory of disease
Vitalism - the theory that living things are alive because of some "vital force" independent of nonliving matter
Azoic Hypothesis - the idea that marine life can't live below 300 fathoms
Caloric Theory - the theory that a self-repelling fluid called "caloric" was the substance of heat
Phlogiston Theory - The theory that combustible goods contain a substance called "phlogiston" which entered air upon combustion
Luminiferous Aether
Contact tension -  theory on the source of electricity'
Steady state theory
The four bodily humors
The Martian Canals
Phrenology



And more recently...at long last it is learned that salt doesn't cause high blood pressure...cholesterol is not a reliable indicator of cardiac disease...sugar does not make children hyper....quasicrystals are real....eggs are not bad for us.....saturated fat is not bad for us after all.....eating a lot of protein, it turns out, is not bad for your bones and kidneys....low fat foods, it seems are not particularly good for us......the idea that we should eat many small meals throughout the day is a persistent myth that still gets suggested.....and on and on and on....science has a long history of being wrong for a very long time till they get past the consensus view and learn the truth.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 6, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> I so wish there was some experiment where you could put these fucking idiots in a situation where they could see the end result of their folly, and the rest of us norms could be in a similar experiment. How long before they would run out of air, or get melanoma, or their lives go to hell in a hand basket.



What you mean is that you wish the pseudoscience you believe in were actual science so that it could be demonstrated.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 6, 2016)

basquebromance said:


> the computer models of the global warming alarmists predicted that the Earth would warm dramatically. there's 1 little problem: the satellites that actually measure the temperature, they have recorded no significant warming whatsoever for the last 18 years!




I am wondering now if these are the same computer models that predicted a hillary landslide win?

Computer models is only as good as the data programmed into them..dont work good with fudged data.


.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 6, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > what a load of shit. Your post reeks of "i haven't a clue so I'll just fake news best I can." Sorry, I know several scientists. A few who work in climate change.
> ...



Here you go. 
Now shut the fuck up...


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 6, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Prove it or shut the fuck up. There is no gravity? You can live in space in a vacuum? you can breath underwater unaided? The ozone layer over the Antarctic starting getting smaller after the reduction of HCFCs was just a coincidence once we stopped putting that shit in the atmosphere?
> ...



None of the those - not one - is a mainstream theory. Try again. harder next time. There is over a 95 per cent agreement by CLIMATE scientists (that's right, climate, not biologists, or chemists or any other type) that climate change is happening due to human influence. Period.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 6, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > I so wish there was some experiment where you could put these fucking idiots in a situation where they could see the end result of their folly, and the rest of us norms could be in a similar experiment. How long before they would run out of air, or get melanoma, or their lives go to hell in a hand basket.
> ...



You have yet to provide any evidence that your *OPINION* is science. Not one shred of evidence. As I said many climate scientists have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that climate change is happening.

Just so you know, the term pseudoscience is relegated to those on the fringe of scientific theory. When 95% of one aspect of science believe in something and the other 5% don't, it is that 5% who are the pseudo scientists. And just so you know (because you are obviously not that bright to know this) you are that 5%.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > That's completely wrong. Stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, and the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the greenhouse gas bands are all direct evidence that the current warming is caused by greenhouse gases.



No response, eh? We see your method. When the facts contradict you, you simply pretend they don't exist.



> Not according to NASA...  Looks like 200 years to me.  Maybe that's why you are wrong about everything else.



So, you're an engineer who can't read a graph. Whatever school you went to, don't advertise their name, being you bring such shame to their engineering program.



> Can you show me your radiative forcing calcs from post WWII industrial CO2 levels (1970) that demonstrate a match for observed associated temperature gain?



I could show you such calcs, but as such things aren't trivial, and the Bible says not to cast pearls before swine. You've already demonstrated how you'll handwave away any and all data which contradicts your cult, so nobody is going to waste massive amounts of ti. The data is out there, so don't expect anyone else to waste massive amounts of time handholding you and trying to educate your lazy ignorant ass.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> And yet how do you explain that the present temperature profile matches the previous four interglacial temperature profiles?



But since it doesn't, that's a rather stupid statement on your part.

Even your graphs show it. Anomaly up at +.5C, and still rising. None of the previous cycles passed +.3C.

And by the way, nobody knows what those graphs even represent, since you haven't seen fit to tell us. Are they global? Regional? A single ice core? Being we don't know and you won't tell us, the graphs are meaningless.



> Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 400,000 years. Now do you understand?



I understand the earth should have continued a slow cooldown for at least another 20,000 years, being that was the natural cycle. As a sharp sustained warmup suddenly happened, and we completely skipped thousands of years of global glaciation, climate is certainly not behaving as per the natural cycle.

But please, expound more on your theory. Tell us how completely skipping a natural glaciation cycle is part of the natural cycle. How is the doing the complete opposite of the natural cycle part of the natural cycle?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> Then please educate me on how glacial cycles work.



Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia


----------



## Wry Catcher (Dec 6, 2016)

Rustic said:


> Great stuff, dumbass progressives in their idol Al gore come up with the funniest things... lol
> predictable of crazy Cali...
> 
> California regulates cow farts



The longest journey begins with the first step!  It seems fools take take their first step in reverse, and desire acid rains and a river on fire instead of a wide effort of innovation


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

SSDD said:


> So your claim is that we can, in fact, actually see and observe what is happening at the level of single atom interactions?


Observation is only the first step in science. The next step correlates observations into a model that can always predict what is happening, or what will happen at the realm where the model is valid. 

You seem to be ignoring the second step.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > So your claim is that we can, in fact, actually see and observe what is happening at the level of single atom interactions?
> ...



What happens if you decide to take a walk and start out on the second step?....answer...you plant your face in the dirt....you are ignoring the first and by far the most important step....we can NOT...in fact see and observe what is happening at the level of single atom interactions...we DO, in fact, make up plausible (?) stories about what is actually happening that jibe with what we can see out here at the macroscopic level...nothing more...nothing less.  If you believe you know what is happening at the level of single atom interaction...or smaller, then you believe in fairy tales.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 6, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...



And you think that proves exactly what?....that climate science is right even though they don't have the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that man's CO2 emissions are altering the global climate?....If you do, then you are even more clueless than I first suspected...

Let me ask, do you think there is observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in that video supporting the A in the AGW hypothesis?...Give me a time stamp...I will be happy to look and point out to you that it isn't...because no such evidence exists...I do enjoy seeing what passes for actual evidence to you people though...endlessly entertaining and it explains much about why you have been so easily duped.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Yes, I agree that the first step is of fundamental importance. But if science was limited only to the first step, we would still be wondering why atoms radiate only certain spectra, where the sun gets it's energy etc. It is the "plausible stories", (which are called mathematical models) which allow us to understand how to build microchips, lasers, etc. This ability to have atomic models that correctly work gives confidence in the models whether we can directly see the atoms or not.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 6, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> None of the those - not one - is a mainstream theory. Try again. harder next time. There is over a 95 per cent agreement by CLIMATE scientists (that's right, climate, not biologists, or chemists or any other type) that climate change is happening due to human influence. Period.



Actually, all of those in the first list were all mainstream theories...believed earnestly by science and in some cases, believed for hundreds of years...

The second list of more modern examples are certainly mainstream, government sponsored science that in many cases have been actively preached to us for decades...Hell, they were telling me salt was bad in the 60's...and it has only been within the past year or so that my personal doctor got off the cholesterol train and stopped trying to put me on statin drugs and admitted that he has been wrong for a very long time...

And climate "science" is a very soft science and consensus among practitioners of a very soft science is not very impressive....much like consensus among psychologists...

Still waiting for that one shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the A in AGW...and I will continue to wait because it does not exist.  Waiting for that evidence is like waiting for the Great Pumpkin.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 6, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> You have yet to provide any evidence that your *OPINION* is science. Not one shred of evidence. As I said many climate scientists have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that climate change is happening.



I am not making any claims that require evidence...you are if you are claiming that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions...and I can't help but notice that you still haven't....nor will you ever.....provide the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim.



Dr Grump said:


> Just so you know, the term pseudoscience is relegated to those on the fringe of scientific theory. When 95% of one aspect of science believe in something and the other 5% don't, it is that 5% who are the pseudo scientists. And just so you know (because you are obviously not that bright to know this) you are that 5%.



Like eugenics?....that was certainly mainstream science...hell there was even a government sponsored "American Eugenics Society"  and eugenics was mainstream till just after WWII.  We know perfectly well it was pseudoscience now...but didn't when we were caught up in it...just like climate pseudoscience today.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Yes, I agree that the first step is of fundamental importance. But if science was limited only to the first step, we would still be wondering why atoms radiate only certain spectra,



For your information, we are still wondering why...we know that they do, but remain in the dark as to why....at present, we just have stories that act as place holders till such time as we can actually see...and then the stories can be replaced with what is actually happening.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Then please educate me on how glacial cycles work.
> ...




Lol. Yes I already knew this.  Why did the ice age end? Why was there a saw tooth behavior on both sides of the cycles?


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > And yet how do you explain that the present temperature profile matches the previous four interglacial temperature profiles?
> ...


Of course the current profile matches the temperature profile of the interglacial cycles.  Are you smoking crack?  The data comes from NASA. The graphs represent global temperature vs time. 

I'll annotate the graphs to illustrate the stupidity of your argument. 

Global Warming : Feature Articles


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

SSDD said:


> For your information, we are still wondering why...we know that they do, but remain in the dark as to why....at present, we just have stories that act as place holders till such time as we can actually see...and then the stories can be replaced with what is actually happening.



If the hard sciences have a "Why" question scientists will be satisfied by an impeccable mathematical model. The current story of electromagnetic and atomic theory is accurate to at least one part per billion, the limit of observation. If a new theory supplants the current theory, it will still be in the form of a mathematical model, and your "Why" question would be no different than it is today.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> And yet how do you explain that the present temperature profile matches the previous four interglacial temperature profiles?
> 
> Wow... doesn't that look like we have a problem!!!!
> 
> ...


You have juxtaposed these two graphs more than once. I'm not clear on why you think that it shows that the current fast decadal rise in temperature is related to the slower rises in the past. The resolution of historic temperature proxies do not have the temporal resolution that come anywhere near the current temporal resolution of today's measurements.

Yes, putting one graph above the other at first glance looks impressive, but the time scale differences belie that.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > And yet how do you explain that the present temperature profile matches the previous four interglacial temperature profiles?
> ...


Because the last 1500 years of temperature are included in both graphs and puts our current temperature trend in the proper context of the glacial-interglacial cycles which is that the current trend is nothing out of the ordinary of past interglacial cycles.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > And yet how do you explain that the present temperature profile matches the previous four interglacial temperature profiles?
> ...


The last 1500 years of temperature are included in both graphs and puts our current temperature trend in the proper context of the glacial-interglacial cycles which is that the current trend is nothing out of the ordinary of past interglacial cycles.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> Because the last 1500 years of temperature are included in both graphs and puts our current temperature trend in the proper context of the glacial-interglacial cycles which is that the current trend is nothing out of the ordinary of past interglacial cycles.


Well, yes and no. The upper graph of 100 years per x-axis tic-mark is compared to the lower graph with 100,000 years per tic. If you adjust for the approx factor of 2 in tic mark spacing, you will find that the upper graph would be much less than a pixel size if it were scaled the same as the lower graph. That, of course is why there is such a slow undulating area before the last 100 years - the glacial cycle effect is very slow in a 1000 year time frame. In light of that, the last 100 years is a dramatic rise that should not be conflated with the much slower glacial rise. The glacial cycle in the upper graph is just a slowly moving baseline to the current rise.

In short, I would disagree that a graph compressed to one pixel would be included in the lower graph in any meaningful way. And I would further add that the graphs do not illustrate that the comparatively rapid rise in the last 100 years has anything to do with the glacial cycle.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Because the last 1500 years of temperature are included in both graphs and puts our current temperature trend in the proper context of the glacial-interglacial cycles which is that the current trend is nothing out of the ordinary of past interglacial cycles.
> ...


Are you arguing that the last 1500 years are not included in both graphs?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> Are you arguing that the last 1500 years are not included in both graphs?


I'm arguing more than that. I said that a graph compressed to one pixel could not be included in the lower graph in any meaningful way. And in that light the rapid rise of the last 100 years is not a part of the glacial cycle.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Are you arguing that the last 1500 years are not included in both graphs?
> ...


No.  Let's establish that first.  Then we can move on to your next point, ok?  Do you believe this curve contains the temperature data for the last 1500 years?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

I don't know where you got it, but for the sake of argument, I can believe that.

Edit: Oops, that represents the last 800,000 years. Do you mean the other graph?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> Lol. Yes I already knew this.  Why did the ice age end? Why was there a saw tooth behavior on both sides of the cycles?



But there's not. You've got that graph-reading problem again, not to mention the severe scale-confusion. The rise comes much faster than the decline. The rise ended around 6000-8000 years ago.

We know what the natural cycle should be now, a slow cooling into the next ice age. It was slowly cooling, until around 1970. At that point, the contribution from greenhouse gases overwhelmed the natural cycle caused cooling, and temperatures started rising sharply. Being we just cancelled the next ice age, it's senseless to claim we're still in the natural ice age cycle.

By the way, that graph you're using is from a single ice core from one location. You're comparing it to a global average temperature. Apples and oranges, invalid.

And again, the directly measured evidence says the current warming is not natural. If the warming was natural, we'd see stratospheric warming. Instead, we see stratospheric cooling. We also see an increase in backradation and decrease in outgoing longwave that would not happen if it was a natural cycle. Hence, it's not a natural cycle.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Lol. Yes I already knew this.  Why did the ice age end? Why was there a saw tooth behavior on both sides of the cycles?
> ...


You are arguing with  data from NASA.  The last 1500 years is included in the 2nd graph.

Global Warming : Feature Articles


----------



## mamooth (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> Do you believe this curve contains the temperature data for the last 1500 years?



Obviously not. It's an ice core graph, so it does not contain around a century of data, being that it takes time on that scale for the ice to become airtight. Year 0 on that graph is around 100 years ago. 

And again, it's an ice core, therefore it only shows a single spot on the planet.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Do you believe this curve contains the temperature data for the last 1500 years?
> ...


Obviously it is.  You can see the decline and the incline.  They are both at the correct AGT.  You are arguing with NASA data.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

Look at the AGT


----------



## mamooth (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> You are arguing with  data from NASA.



No, I'm pointing out your weird claims are unsupported by the NASA data. On the next page from your graph, NASA says this. 

Global Warming : Feature Articles
---
*These natural causes are still in play today, but their influence is too small or they occur too slowly to explain the rapid warming * seen in recent decades.
---

NASA says you're totally wrong, and they say it directly, so don't try to snow us with the "NASA supports me!" nonsense.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > You are arguing with  data from NASA.
> ...


The data NASA posted show similar slopes, so I do not know what data they are basing that statement upon because the data they posted does not show slopes that are any different than previous interglacial cycles.  Furthermore, the same saw tooth behavior is seen in past interglacial cycles and they have similar temperature ranges.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> Obviously it is.  You can see the decline and the incline.  They are both at the correct AGT.  You are arguing with NASA data.



Simply denying that ice cores don't contain any data from recent years isn't going to make that inconvenient fact go away. That graph does _not_ contain the last 1500 years, period.



> Look at the AGT



America's Got Talent?

Oh, average global temperature. Again, your graph doesn't show that. It shows the temperature at a single ice core location.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously it is.  You can see the decline and the incline.  They are both at the correct AGT.  You are arguing with NASA data.
> ...


They aren't my graphs.  They are NASA's graphs.  The AGT's are the same on each curve for the last 1500 years.  The last 1500 years is included in both plots.  Stop crapping your pants over nothing.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> The data NASA posted show similar slopes, so I do not know what data they are basing that statement upon because the data they posted does not show slopes that are any different than previous interglacial cycles.



Unlike you, NASA doesn't base their conclusions entirely on a single graph from a single location that leaves out all the data from near the present time.



> Furthermore, the same saw tooth behavior is seen in past interglacial cycles and they have similar temperature ranges.



So?

That's a logical fallacy on our part. You're claiming climate must always act exactly like the past, even if conditions in the present are wildly different. Rest assured that actual scientists instantly recognize your fallacy, and the complete failure of the conclusions that you derive from it.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > The data NASA posted show similar slopes, so I do not know what data they are basing that statement upon because the data they posted does not show slopes that are any different than previous interglacial cycles.
> ...


NASA was talking about CO2 and not temperature.  They made a mistake.  How do I know?  Because the data they showed does not match the statement they made, but it is a correct statement for CO2.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

mamooth said:


> That's a logical fallacy on our part. You're claiming climate must always act exactly like the past, even if conditions in the present are wildly different. Rest assured that actual scientists instantly recognize your fallacy, and the complete failure of the conclusions that you derive from it.



Don't be silly.  No, not always, but the conditions which led to the glacial-interglacial cycles still exists and the trend is still continuing.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> They aren't my graphs.  They are NASA's graphs.



And we're pointing out that you clearly have no idea of what those graphs mean.



> The AGT's are the same on each curve for the last 1500 years.



Totally wrong, being how the ice core graph doesn't include recent years. NASA knows that. I keep telling you that. Why do you keep pretending not to understand? It's not complicated.



> The last 1500 years is included in both plots.  Stop crapping your pants over nothing.



Let's go over some of your colossal logical blunders.

You claim an ice core graph contains data from recent years.

You claim an ice core graph from one spot represents the entire planet.

You claim the present has to behave exactly like the past, no matter how conditions are different in the present.

You ignore the time scale differences in the plots, which would make the current rise invisible on your long-scale graph.

You deliberately ignore the directly measured physical evidence that shows the warming is not part of a natural cycle.

And you claim NASA is totally wrong because they didn't hilariously misinterpret the data like you do.

Conclusion: A bright fourth grader does much better science than you.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> Don't be silly.  No, not always, but the conditions which led to the glacial-interglacial cycles still exists and the trend is still continuing.



Given that the slow cooling trend of the glacial cycle turned into fast warming around 1970, planet earth says you're claiming the exact opposite of reality.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Don't be silly.  No, not always, but the conditions which led to the glacial-interglacial cycles still exists and the trend is still continuing.
> ...


I don't believe I am.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

ding said:


> I don't believe I am.


Posting the same topic on the Arctic heat site. I will abandon this thread and use the other thread.


----------



## ding (Dec 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe I am.
> ...


Probably because it is a critical point and has drawn so much attention.


----------



## jillian (Dec 6, 2016)

Rustic said:


> Great stuff, dumbass progressives in their idol Al gore come up with the funniest things... lol
> predictable of crazy Cali...
> 
> California regulates cow farts



If only you wackos had the slightest knowledge information and understanding of science. 

But thanks for minimizing the issue with your usual nonsense.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 6, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > For your information, we are still wondering why...we know that they do, but remain in the dark as to why....at present, we just have stories that act as place holders till such time as we can actually see...and then the stories can be replaced with what is actually happening.
> ...



Pure fantasy.....you aren't supposed to actually believe the place holding stories....but then, since you buy AGW, you clearly will believe anything.


----------



## westwall (Dec 6, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Scientific Consensus
> 
> 
> 
> ...








How about linking to the amounts of money each of those groups get for pushing the fraud.  I'll wait.


----------



## westwall (Dec 6, 2016)

jillian said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Great stuff, dumbass progressives in their idol Al gore come up with the funniest things... lol
> ...








Better regulate yourself jillian.  You exhale half a ton of CO2 every year.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 6, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > The data NASA posted show similar slopes, so I do not know what data they are basing that statement upon because the data they posted does not show slopes that are any different than previous interglacial cycles.
> ...




Remind us how old NASA is again?

Oh yea born in 1958


2. So in your world the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and it appears to us know you think the day you were born the earths climate became stable?

So you are telling us we cant assume the earths climate is going to do the same thing?


Youre jumping the shark now


.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Pure fantasy.....you aren't supposed to actually believe the place holding stories....but then, since you buy AGW, you clearly will believe anything.


Exactly what is pure fantasy?
I have never said I believe AGW the jury is still out for me. In ten or so years I might change my mind depending on the data. If people don't want to believe GW or AGW, I really don't care. But I will challenge them if they use science improperly. Disbelieve it for the right reasons, not from crap that comes from bloggers that make things up.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 6, 2016)

westwall said:


> Better regulate yourself jillian.  You exhale half a ton of CO2 every year.



Nice death wish. 

It will be interesting to see how you weasel now. Did you want her to stop breathing permanently in a nice way?

Deniers are getting worse with their violent impulses. Most of them were always authoritarian thugs deep down inside, but they at least they knew they needed to hide that aspect of their personality. Now, with fascism on the rise in the USA and being so trendy, they've gotten bold, so they're putting their death-lust on open display. That's why it's so important for decent people to call them out every time they do that.


----------



## westwall (Dec 6, 2016)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Better regulate yourself jillian.  You exhale half a ton of CO2 every year.
> ...








Nope.  I happen to like jillian a lot.  I was pointing out the absolute absurdity of designating a gas that people and animals exhale a "pollutant".  It takes a particular breed of stupid to believe that.

Hello stupid


----------



## mamooth (Dec 6, 2016)

westwall said:


> Nope.  I happen to like jillian a lot.  I was pointing out the absolute absurdity of designating a gas that people and animals exhale a "pollutant".  It takes a particular breed of stupid to believe that.
> 
> Hello stupid



Yep, I called it dead on. You say you were telling someone to stop breathing in a nice way.

According to you, Crick was being genocidal when he said a similar thing is a satirical way, but when you do it, it's just a happy joke. How do you justify such obvious stinking hypocrisy on your part, other than by invoking your usual "The ends always justify the means for my own side" life philosophy?


----------



## Ernie S. (Dec 6, 2016)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Better regulate yourself jillian.  You exhale half a ton of CO2 every year.
> ...


How have "Deniers" been thuggish or authoritarian? YOU are the people forcing rules, taxes and fines. We just refuse to buy your bullshit. You are the ones protesting and sabotaging energy infrastructure projects. Seems that y'all are a wee tad thuggish and authoritarian. Have you seen the GOP making any "executive orders" in the last 8 years?


----------



## Ernie S. (Dec 6, 2016)

Sarcasm is lost on them...


----------



## westwall (Dec 6, 2016)

Ernie S. said:


> Sarcasm is lost on them...






It takes an intellect to appreciate sarcasm.  Go figure.


----------



## westwall (Dec 6, 2016)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Nope.  I happen to like jillian a lot.  I was pointing out the absolute absurdity of designating a gas that people and animals exhale a "pollutant".  It takes a particular breed of stupid to believe that.
> ...








Oh no.  crikey wasn't being sarcastic.  He said "off the sceptics".  That is a clear call for murder.  I said "regulate" as in a legal manner.  jillian is an attorney and has a brain so she understands exactly what I meant.  Unlike a lying POS like you.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 7, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Pure fantasy.....you aren't supposed to actually believe the place holding stories....but then, since you buy AGW, you clearly will believe anything.
> ...





			
				wuwei said:
			
		

> The current story of electromagnetic and atomic theory is accurate to at least one part per billion, the limit of observation.



Upon what is the claim of accuracy of at least 1 part per billion based?....let me guess...an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable, mathematical model....which you believe because that is your nature.  You guys crack me up...the discussion is about the actual limited knowledge of science...and the fact that most of what we "know" about what happens at the level of single atom interactions and smaller is little more than stories that we have invented in an attempt to explain the results of mathematical models and some of what we observe....and what do you do in attempt to argue that we, in fact, know what is happening at that level.....you provide me with the results of a mathematical model...think in circles much?


----------



## Crick (Dec 7, 2016)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I used the term "off the deniers" (none of you have ever qualified as skeptics) in a direct and immediate quotation of poster Stephanie who told me I should "off myself" but to whom none of you have ever said a single fucking word.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Upon what is the claim of accuracy of at least 1 part per billion based?....let me guess...an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable, mathematical model....which you believe because that is your nature. You guys crack me up...the discussion is about the actual limited knowledge of science...and the fact that most of what we "know" about what happens at the level of single atom interactions and smaller is little more than stories that we have invented in an attempt to explain the results of mathematical models and some of what we observe....and what do you do in attempt to argue that we, in fact, know what is happening at that level.....you provide me with the results of a mathematical model...think in circles much?



There is no circular thinking. There have been many "observable, measurable, testable" measurements in labs of the fundamental nature of particles. The experiments are very sophisticated and evolved over time with many researchers using many different approaches while improving the accuracy over the years. The following are the most recent laboratory measurments:
Anomalous magnetic dipole moment: 1.001 159 652 180 85 
Rydberg constant:  137.035 999 070
Fine-structure constant: 0.007 297 351 +/- 0.000 000 006​
These measurements range in accuracy from 7 to 15 significant figures and were compared against the equations (story?) of the theory of quantum electrodynamics. 
The theory totally agrees with those experiments to an incredible accuracy.

There is no fantasy or thinking in circles here.


----------



## westwall (Dec 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...







What exactly are we "denying"?  And what is your definition of a skeptic?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 7, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Upon what is the claim of accuracy of at least 1 part per billion based?....let me guess...an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable, mathematical model....which you believe because that is your nature. You guys crack me up...the discussion is about the actual limited knowledge of science...and the fact that most of what we "know" about what happens at the level of single atom interactions and smaller is little more than stories that we have invented in an attempt to explain the results of mathematical models and some of what we observe....and what do you do in attempt to argue that we, in fact, know what is happening at that level.....you provide me with the results of a mathematical model...think in circles much?
> ...



The Anomalous magnetic dipole moment is the result of a mathematical model, used to verify another mathematical model...ie...place holding story...

The Rydberg constant is no more than a fine measurement (boosted by a mathematical model) of the ionization energy of a hydrogen atom.

And the Fine-structure constant is a measurement of the magnetic strength between elementary charged particles...

Fine achievements one and all...but in the larger picture about as impressive as a toddlers first step compared to the performance of a world champion try-athelete.  The child should be proud but for all the accomplishment, it is just a first step.

From that, you leap to the claim that we know what is happening, and what forces are at work at the level of single atom interactions?....You are as nutty as ian....you have accepted science as some all knowing, infallible cultish religion that already knows all the answers....newsflash...it doesn't.

Have you read the news lately?...Medical science, which labors under a far higher....a far far far higher standard than climatology will ever be held to, has recently admitted that as much as 75% of the published findings from the field are false...I would be very surprised if 50% of the work coming out of post modern physics stands the test of time and would be very surprised if more than 2% of the tripe that comes from climate science is still mainstream science in 10 years.


----------



## Crick (Dec 7, 2016)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I am stating the fact that I never suggested anyone be killed or commit suicide.  And a skeptic is someone who exhibits skepticism.

You and everyone else here knows what you deny.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 7, 2016)

Really, really hate to nuke this thread and split........but I cant help myself s0ns.


Politics
*Trump Picks Scott Pruitt, Climate Change Dissenter, to Lead E.P.A.*


By CORAL DAVENPORT and ERIC LIPTONDEC. 7, 2016



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html?_r=0


----------



## westwall (Dec 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...







Spell it out for us.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 7, 2016)

SSDD said:


> The Anomalous magnetic dipole moment is the result of a mathematical model, used to verify another mathematical model...ie...place holding story...
> 
> The Rydberg constant is no more than a fine measurement (boosted by a mathematical model) of the ionization energy of a hydrogen atom.
> 
> ...



My gosh, I have never seen such an anti-science diatribe. I was saying that many precise "observable, measurable, testable" measurements have been made in labs and they agree perfectly with mathematical predictions. Then you reply with definitions of the experiments, a comparison with a child, and distractions into a denigration medical science and of modern physics. 

Yet, your own misunderstanding of the science of thermodynamics and radiation physics is a travesty. Absolutely no physicist believes what you do in those fields. You are alone in your opinion of what modern science is.

Do you understand that the entropy definition of the second law of thermodynamics is about the dynamic nature of disordered states of systems and and has no restrictions on thermal photons moving from cold bodies to warmer bodies? 

Do you disagree with the entropy definition?


----------



## westwall (Dec 7, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The Anomalous magnetic dipole moment is the result of a mathematical model, used to verify another mathematical model...ie...place holding story...
> ...







Please post a link to those lab studies.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 7, 2016)

And then we have the paleo records which show the AGW meme to nothing to worry about...

I figured it was about time for a reality check... SO here it is..


----------



## SSDD (Dec 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> I am stating the fact that I never suggested anyone be killed or commit suicide.  And a skeptic is someone who exhibits skepticism.



Of course you did crick...why lie?

Do you know the definition of suggest? 

Suggest - 
verb 
1.
to mention or introduce (an idea, proposition,plan, etc.) for consideration or possible action.

Here is what you said....



			
				crick said:
			
		

> Just from a hypothetical viewpoint, it would be a great deal more effective to "off" all the deniers.



By DEFINITION, you suggested that deniers be killed.



Crick said:


> You and everyone else here knows what you deny.



We deny the false religion of environmentalism/agw....we are very skeptical of the pseudoscience that climate science is putting out in support of that religion.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 8, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> My gosh, I have never seen such an anti-science diatribe. I was saying that many precise "observable, measurable, testable" measurements have been made in labs and they agree perfectly with mathematical predictions. Then you reply with definitions of the experiments, a comparison with a child, and distractions into a denigration medical science and of modern physics.



3 is not many...and none of those 3 tell us what is happening at the level of single atom interactions....and I am not anti science....I am all for science...My formative years were in the early 1960's when science was king...every kid wanted to be a scientist...science made discoveries and proved them....post modern science is plagued with the publish or perish mentality and rarely proves anything....in short, little of what is called science today actually meets the bar of actual science....and far far to much of it is false.

I agree with the laws of thermodynamics...the second states clearly that neither energy nor heat will move spontaneously from cool to warm...such movement has never been observed...neither heat nor energy move spontaneously from cool to warm...the claim that they do is post modern unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical modeling....let me know when the laws of thermodynamics are rewritten to reflect the claims made by the models...here is a hint...it isn't going to happen...the models will change 50 times before those laws are even slightly challenged.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> 3 is not many...and none of those 3 tell us what is happening at the level of single atom interactions....and I am not anti science....I am all for science...My formative years were in the early 1960's when science was king...every kid wanted to be a scientist...science made discoveries and proved them....post modern science is plagued with the publish or perish mentality and rarely proves anything....in short, little of what is called science today actually meets the bar of actual science....and far far to much of it is false.
> 
> I agree with the laws of thermodynamics...the second states clearly that neither energy nor heat will move spontaneously from cool to warm...such movement has never been observed...neither heat nor energy move spontaneously from cool to warm...the claim that they do is post modern unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical modeling....let me know when the laws of thermodynamics are rewritten to reflect the claims made by the models...here is a hint...it isn't going to happen...the models will change 50 times before those laws are even slightly challenged.



Right. 3 is not many in the list, but I listed 3 classic examples of quantum electrodynamics that were impossible to consider with old theories. Other examples include the atomic spectra of elements; why the valences of the rare earths deviate from classical physics; energy levels of muonic hydrogen.

Laser spectroscopy has increased the level of precision to one part per trillion in "measurable, observable, repeatable" laboratory measurements of the energy states of hydrogen and helium. These measurements also agree with models at the same level of calculated precision: one part per trillion. Virtually every aspect of atomic physics that can be observed and measured agrees with the modern physics models to unprecedented accuracy.

You go ahead and disparage the models of modern physics if you like, but it brought you lasers, microchips, GPS, thin screen LCD monitors, and many more.

As far as the second law of thermodynamics, entropy is the all-encompassing definition that is valid for all processes including nuclear energy, chemical changes, radiation physics, and yes, steam engines. The law you cling to actually has been rewritten with a broader over-arching basis on entropy.

You didn't answer my question. This is the third time you avoided it:


Wuwei said:


> Do you understand that the entropy definition of the second law of thermodynamics is about the dynamic nature of disordered states of systems and and has no restrictions on thermal photons moving from cold bodies to warmer bodies?
> 
> Do you disagree with the entropy definition?


Please answer the question.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 8, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> So, every  Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statements that say that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So, are we to believe an anonymous poster on a message board who has only demonstrated profound ignorance in all spheres over the scientists? LOL


Like you, no, I don't believe you or your scientists.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 8, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


so what's your temperatures looking like this week and next?


----------



## jc456 (Dec 8, 2016)

Esmeralda said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Great stuff, dumbass progressives in their idol Al gore come up with the funniest things... lol
> ...


prove the vast majority.  list the names of this supposed group.  how many scientists does this number represent out of how many?  Come now, don't come in here posting nonsense without facts, let's see the counts.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Dear little cocksuck, so you are accusing every scientist in every nation of committing fraud or being accessory to fraud. Make sure you have plenty of tinfoil for your little hats.
> ...


the religion is done on Jan 20th.  I can't wait for that transition.  can you say boom?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 8, 2016)

ding said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Good God, Ding, you have just proven how utterly stupid you are. Very different scales on the two graphs. Were the tow graphs on the same scaling, the upper graph on the climb in temperatures for the last thawing would be a very low slope. About 1 degree per thousand years, compared to the bottom graph of the present warming with is about 1 degree per hundred years. So it is warming about ten times faster than it did coming out of the last glacial period.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 8, 2016)

ding said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Your interpretations of the NASA graphs is totally bogus. The two graphs are on very different scales. The slopes of the lines cannot be compared as you are comparing them. Sure as hell glad you don't work in our engineering department.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 8, 2016)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


An ignorant delusional willfully ignorant fuck, in most cases. Otherwise, assholes that lie for money, and don't give a shit about what we hand our descendants. Given that the ability of GHG's to warm the atmosphere is based on established physics, they are not skeptics at all, they are in denial of basic science for political reasons.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 8, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Do you understand that the entropy definition of the second law of thermodynamics is about the dynamic nature of disordered states of systems and and has no restrictions on thermal photons moving from cold bodies to warmer bodies?



I understand that you have a distorted understanding of entropy...objects radiate in all directions according to their temperature....if, AND ONLY, if they are theoretical perfect black bodies in a theoretical perfect vacuum...put them in the presence of other objects and they start radiating according to the difference between their own temperature and that of their surroundings...and every observation ever made, supports that statement.

As to what entropy is and how it relates to the second law, let me give you a couple of examples....

Heat a frying pan on the eye of a stove...the atoms are vibrating rapidly as a result of the heat...meaning that the energy is localized in the hot frying pan...Take the frying pan from the heat source and that localized energy will spread out unless it is prevented from doing so in some way that involves work...the energy will disperse into the cooler room...the pan's localized energy is spread out into the cooler room...entropy...a natural and irreversible process without some work being done to reverse it.

Hold a marble above your head...there is potential energy stored in that action...drop it and that potential energy becomes kinetic energy...as it falls and moves air aside as it is falling, and when it hits the ground, then it hits the ground and a bit of energy becomes sound, a bit becomes heat in the form of friction.  The marble remains mostly unchanged, except for perhaps a scratch, but the potential energy that your muscles localized by lifting up the marble has been completely dispersed in a bit of movement of air, a bit of sound and a bit of heat...entropy...a natural and irreversible process without some work being done to reverse it.

The very atoms of some things have energy stored within them in the form of localized energy...iron for example..and oxygen....combine them and you get iron oxide...or rust...which has less energy than the iron and oxygen that formed it...energy was lost in the reaction...entropy...a natural and irreversible process without some work having been done to reverse the process...

Energy moves from more organized state to a less organized state...energy moving from the cool atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth would be exactly the opposite of entropy...it would be energy moving from a more dispersed state to a more localized state...that can't happen without some work being done to make it happen.

Entropy is all about how energy is being dispersed from concentrated localized potential energy to an ever more spread out and less useful state.



Wuwei said:


> Do you disagree with the entropy definition?



I agree that entropy is energy dispersing from a concentrated localized state to an ever more dispersed and less useful state....which is what entropy, in fact, is...now if you are somehow suggesting that entropy allows energy, or heat, to move from a dispersed state to a more localized state and therefore spontaneously increase its potential, then you have a terribly flawed understanding of what entropy is.


----------



## westwall (Dec 8, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...









They are theoretical constructs and nothing more.  To date there has never been a controlled lab experiment that even begins to support the nonsense you bleat.


----------



## westwall (Dec 8, 2016)

westwall said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...







Wuwei  Still waiting for a link to those studies you claim exist.


----------



## ding (Dec 8, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


The last 1500 years is on the graph, Einstein.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> I understand that you have a distorted understanding of entropy...objects radiate in all directions according to their temperature....if, AND ONLY, if they are theoretical perfect black bodies in a theoretical perfect vacuum...put them in the presence of other objects and they start radiating according to the difference between their own temperature and that of their surroundings...and every observation ever made, supports that statement.



That is only your opinion. All your sentences are flat wrong except, "_objects radiate in all directions according to their temperature._"



SSDD said:


> As to what entropy is and how it relates to the second law, let me give you a couple of examples....
> Heat a frying pan......
> Hold a marble above your head......
> combine them and you get iron oxide...or rust... ......



I'm talking about radiation physics and you digress into frying pans, marbles, and rust.



SSDD said:


> Entropy is all about how energy is being dispersed from concentrated localized potential energy to an ever more spread out and less useful state....
> 
> I agree that entropy is energy dispersing from a concentrated localized state to an ever more dispersed and less useful state....which is what entropy, in fact, is.


Right.



SSDD said:


> ...now if you are somehow suggesting that entropy allows energy, or heat, to move from a dispersed state to a more localized state and therefore spontaneously increase its potential, then you have a terribly flawed understanding of what entropy is.



This is where you misunderstand entropy. Your mistake is that you are only focusing on the radiation of the colder body to the hotter body. Don't forget that the *hotter body will always emit more radiation to the colder body than vice versa*. *That radiation imbalance means the hotter body cools and the cooler body heats, and entropy increases. *

Again, radiation exchange doesn't violate entropy when it's thermal black body radiation. There is nothing in the definition of entropy that prevents that imbalance of two way radiation.

.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 8, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I understand that you have a distorted understanding of entropy...objects radiate in all directions according to their temperature....if, AND ONLY, if they are theoretical perfect black bodies in a theoretical perfect vacuum...put them in the presence of other objects and they start radiating according to the difference between their own temperature and that of their surroundings...and every observation ever made, supports that statement.
> ...


wooo here, I thought if the cold body radiated toward the hotter body, the hotter body got hotter?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 8, 2016)

ding said:


> The last 1500 years is on the graph, Einstein.


C'mon Ding. We went through that all before. Did you forget that what you circled is actually 20,000 years, not 1,500. Just look at the scale definition at the bottom of the time axis.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 8, 2016)

westwall said:


> Wuwei Still waiting for a link to those studies you claim exist.



Precision tests of QED - Wikipedia
The Wonders of Accuracy: Field Theory and Atomic Spectra


----------



## ding (Dec 8, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > The last 1500 years is on the graph, Einstein.
> ...


lol, why are you lying?  The circle is showing the area to look at you idiot.  The last 1500 years are on this graph.  If your argument were stronger, you wouldn't need to squelch discussion of the data, dipshit.


----------



## ding (Dec 8, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > The last 1500 years is on the graph, Einstein.
> ...


Do the AGT's match for the present, dipshit?  Yes they do!


----------



## ding (Dec 8, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > The last 1500 years is on the graph, Einstein.
> ...


So now that we have resolved that both curves include the last 1500 years, dipshit, is the current AGT in excess of the previous four interglacial peaks in temperature, dipshit?  No it is not!


----------



## ding (Dec 8, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > The last 1500 years is on the graph, Einstein.
> ...


So now... my final question to you is.... can you be a bigger dipshit than you already are?  I hope you are not this incompetent and dishonest in your day job.  You wouldn't happen to be a climate scientist, would you?  That would explain your lack of competence and honesty.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 8, 2016)

ding said:


> lol, why are you lying? The circle is showing the area to look at you idiot. The last 1500 years are on this graph. If your argument were stronger, you wouldn't need to squelch discussion of the data, dipshit.


Just look at the scale definition at the bottom of the time axis in the lower graph. The data in the circle has a span of 20,000 years according to that scale. Insults won't change that.


----------



## jc456 (Dec 8, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > lol, why are you lying? The circle is showing the area to look at you idiot. The last 1500 years are on this graph. If your argument were stronger, you wouldn't need to squelch discussion of the data, dipshit.
> ...


it does?  hmmmm, looks closer to 1,500 within his circle.  you know the first tic mark is 100,000 years right?  Get a ruler out and measure again.  you failed this time. 20,000 is in the first large dip.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 8, 2016)

ding said:


> So now... my final question to you is.... can you be a bigger dipshit than you already are? I hope you are not this incompetent and dishonest in your day job. You wouldn't happen to be a climate scientist, would you? That would explain your lack of competence and honesty.


Gosh you are awfully angry. Did you check the scale at the bottom of the graph?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 8, 2016)

ding said:


> So now that we have resolved that both curves include the last 1500 years, dipshit, is the current AGT in excess of the previous four interglacial peaks in temperature, dipshit? No it is not!


Of course it's not. What are you concluding from that?


----------



## ding (Dec 8, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > lol, why are you lying? The circle is showing the area to look at you idiot. The last 1500 years are on this graph. If your argument were stronger, you wouldn't need to squelch discussion of the data, dipshit.
> ...


Do the AGT's match for the present, dip shit?  Yes.  Were both graphs posted at the exact same time on the NASA website?  Yes.  Are you seriously arguing that this curve does not include the data for the past 1500 years?  It does appear so.  Why?  Because you are devoid of honesty and this destroys your argument.


----------



## ding (Dec 8, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > So now that we have resolved that both curves include the last 1500 years, dipshit, is the current AGT in excess of the previous four interglacial peaks in temperature, dipshit? No it is not!
> ...


That what we are seeing today is still within the normal range of past interglacial cycles.


----------



## ding (Dec 8, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > So now... my final question to you is.... can you be a bigger dipshit than you already are? I hope you are not this incompetent and dishonest in your day job. You wouldn't happen to be a climate scientist, would you? That would explain your lack of competence and honesty.
> ...


Well... you did lie about what we concluded, dipshit.  If you don't want to be called a dipshit, stop lying.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 8, 2016)

westwall said:


> Oh no.  crikey wasn't being sarcastic.  He said "off the sceptics".  That is a clear call for murder.  I said "regulate" as in a legal manner.



So after first admitting you did imply she should stop breathing, but that it was okay because you did it nicely, you've now spun completely about, flipflopping totally, and are declaring you did no such thing.

You're really bad at lying. That's one reason why you should stop doing it so regularly. I mean, people can appreciate a good liar, but you suck hard at it. Watching you try to lie successfully is like watching faceplant vidoes. Everyone here knows you're lying, and you know everyone knows it, yet you still do it. Why? Because pathological narcissists are emotionally incaple of admitting any error of any sort. Your stunted manchild psyche is simply incapable of truthfulness.

Anyways, the issue is settled, so there's no need to talk about it more. By your very own definition, you are a proudly homicidal, a perfect representative of the homicidal denier cult. Glad we have that settled. That is, unless you'd like to change your definition. But then, if you did that, you wouldn't be able to lie about liberals to further your sputtering bug-eyed hatred. Ooh, you are in a pickle. Sucks to be you.


----------



## westwall (Dec 8, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei Still waiting for a link to those studies you claim exist.
> ...








Care to let us know how the two quantum mechanics papers you link to support the theory of AGW.


----------



## westwall (Dec 8, 2016)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Oh no.  crikey wasn't being sarcastic.  He said "off the sceptics".  That is a clear call for murder.  I said "regulate" as in a legal manner.
> ...







mammy, the first thing you should learn is not to project your own bad behaviors.  crickey knows exactly what he was saying, as do you.  We called you both on your bullshit behavior and you decided to double down on stupid.  The fact remains that the only provable group who has ever called for the incarceration and murder of people who don't agree with their theory is YOU, and your fellow progressive fruitcakes.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I am stating the fact that I never suggested anyone be killed or commit suicide.  And a skeptic is someone who exhibits skepticism.
> ...



No, he didn't. You're lying as big as Westwall. Cultists tend to do that.

Stephanie suggested that Crick off himself.

Crick pointed out the error in Stephanie's logic, and showed her train of logic would indicate it would be more logical for her to off deniers instead of decent people.

Pointing out what someone else's logic says is not agreeing with that logic, shit-for-brains, and only liars will try to claim it is.

The only people on this board to have called for people to die over this topic are deniers, and they tend to do it regularly, and then lie their asses off and project their homicidal lust on to the moral side. The two sides are radically diffeernt. Deniers include a large number of violent psychopaths in their ranks, and the rational people don't.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 8, 2016)

ding said:


> The last 1500 years is on the graph, Einstein.



And again, shit-for-brains, it's not. Ice cores don't include the most recent 50 years or so, because it takes that long for the ice layers to become airtight.

I've told you that several times. You've ignored it every time, and instead gone right back to your demonstrably bullshit claim.

You're being deliberately dishonest, by ignoring the facts that rip apart you're stupid claims. Since you're not debating honestly, why should anyone pay any attention to you? After all, religious nutters willing to lie for their cult are a dime-a-dozen. You don't bring anything new to the table by acting like that.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 8, 2016)

ding said:


> Well... you did lie about what we concluded, dipshit. If you don't want to be called a dipshit, stop lying.


I really don't care what you call me.

Let me refer you back my  post #179 in the thread Arctic-Heat,


			
				Wuwei said:
			
		

> _"But when you look at the far right sections, and at the x and y axis legends, you see the top graph increases about 1 degree in 100 years and the bottom graph (where you circled) increases about 10 degrees in 20,000 years. With that you can calculate the slopes.
> 
> If you do the arithmetic the *current rise is .01 degrees per year*
> The *glacial rise is about .0005 degrees per year.*
> ...


Why don't you tell me why you think the very slow glacial rise of .0005 deg/yr sped up by a factor of 20 to .01 deg/yr in the last few decades.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 8, 2016)

westwall said:


> crickey knows exactly what he was saying, as do you.



Obviously. That would be why we're stating the provable fact that you're being deliberately dishonest. Instead of condemning the very common calls for violence from your side, you proudly run interference for those people whenever we highlight those tactics. That indicates your enthusiastic endorsement of those tactics.



> The fact remains that the only provable group who has ever called for the incarceration and murder of people who don't agree with their theory is YOU, and your fellow progressive fruitcakes.



You always pretend it's a fact, yet you've been unable to show even a single example of anyone on the side of reason here using such tactics. You're using the propaganda techniques of your mentors, Stalin and Alinsky.

Now, let me go find that list Crick posted once. If nobody on your side has ever made such calls for death, then why does that small excerpt of denier death-lust have so many examples? You stated clearly and directly that it had never happened, yet it clearly happens over and over. You flat-out lied to our faces.

Now, go on. Handwave them away again. Run that interference, to demonstrate how much you love those tactics.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9523747/
---
boedicca said: ↑
In order to reduce your own personal creation of greenhouse gasses, hold your breath forever.

SSDD said: ↑
I wonder how many of these warmer idiots will suicide out of sheer despair when the hoax finally comes tumbling down?

CrusaderFrank said: ↑
It never ends well for Death worshipong Cults, CO2 is their Jonesville and they will glady drink the KoolAid

daveman said: ↑
So, it looks like you can kill yourself out of shame now. But that's one emotion you're incapable of, isn't it?

Kosh said: ↑
If the OP and all the other AGW cult members would stop breathing the CO2 problem will be fixed..

Kosh said: ↑
If the OP and all the other AGW cult members would stop breathing the CO2 problem will be fixed..

dilloduck said: ↑
I just made one and you're right---it's too expensive to let people with breathing problems live.

Redfish said: ↑
Lets see now, if your charts and conclusions are correct, we need to kill all the chinese and indians. Should we nuke them? no, too much fall out. Poison their water? stop shipping food to them? how about the booming populations in indonesia and south america, how do we eliminate them?

HenryBHough said: ↑
Nice part of cults is that they tend to mass suicide.
In this instance, if they are right, their lemmingesque checking out would do an immense bit toward ending the warming they fear most. Provided they all just took dirt naps instead of being roasted and emitting all those nasty pollutants......

CrusaderFrank said: ↑
Oh Please! Oh God! That would be so fucking awesome! They don't even have to die, just get off the Internet

gallantwarrior said: ↑
Really, the absolute best way for humans to limit their emissions is to minimize the number of humans. I most heartily welcome the voluntary participation of those who believe that humans are a major factor in "global warming", or "climate change" (whatever the current buzzword is) in the "minimize humans" green program..go ahead, do us all a favor, your personal contribution to decreasing human damage to the planet will be welcomed.

CrusaderFrank said: ↑
This is why I say the Warmers are a sick, death-worshiping Cult

Kosh said: ↑
Well all you AGW church members if you believe that CO2 drives climate you might want to show belief by not breathing anymore.

Sunshine said: ↑
Reduce air pollution. Stop breathing. We promise to miss you. But we will enjoy the cleaner air.

gallantwarrior said: ↑
I have issued this challenge before to all the adherents of the AGW cult before:
If you are so very concerned about the damage being done to the Earth by human infestation, please lead the way. You are more than welcome to contribute, up close and personal, to improving the situation. I'll be watching the obits to see whether you all are convinced enough to put your money where your mouth is.

gallantwarrior said: ↑
The solution to AGW issue is simple, and very inexpensive. Since CO2 is a normally occurring byproduct of human respiration, I challenge every proponent of AGW, every worshiper of the whole AGW myth, to cease all respiration, and ensure that anyone in your family joins you in you effort to diminish humanity's contribution to CO2 emissions.
C'mon, step up and show us how committed you are to saving the environment.

flacaltenn said: ↑
"If you want to save the Planet, Stop breathing dammit"
---


----------



## westwall (Dec 8, 2016)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > crickey knows exactly what he was saying, as do you.
> ...







Almost ALL of which refer to the idiocy of CO2 being classified a pollutant.  A trace gas that YOU exhale nitwit.  Not one of those statements is a declaration of intent as crickeys was.  They are a sarcastic response to an idiotic statement on the part of YOU morons.  

You're so fucking stupid (or intellectually dishonest, you choose) you can't understand the difference between a off color joke and a call to incarcerate and murder people.  

The video below is the sort of bullshit you clowns support.


----------



## ding (Dec 8, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > The last 1500 years is on the graph, Einstein.
> ...


Look at the AGT's of both curves and then get back to me with your bullshit rejection of data.


----------



## ding (Dec 8, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Well... you did lie about what we concluded, dipshit. If you don't want to be called a dipshit, stop lying.
> ...


Because it is bullshit.  That's why.  Use this curve to calculate the slope and then get back to me.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 8, 2016)

ding said:


> Look at the AGT's of both curves and then get back to me with your bullshit rejection of data.


Of course the two graphs have the same endpoint. They were made that way. I don't know why you get so excited about that. That is of trivial importance. 

Your problem is that you were saying the circle in the lower graph encompassed the blue part of the upper graph. That is simply not the case if you look at the hugely different time scales of the two graphs. The circle was way too wide.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 8, 2016)

ding said:


> Because it is bullshit. That's why. Use this curve to calculate the slope and then get back to me.


I did that twice.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 8, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> That is only your opinion. All your sentences are flat wrong except, "_objects radiate in all directions according to their temperature._"



Sorry guy, but it is not my opinion...and it is stated by the Stefan-Boltzmann law...you have a completely distorted understanding of how, and where energy moves to...

This Equation  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  describes a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum according to its temperature.

Take the black body out of the vacuum and put it in the presence of other matter and you must use this equation 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 which describes a radiator not in a vacuum radiating according to the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings.

I have already been around with ian on this because he had the same mistaken understanding of the SB law as you....so I took the time to email a few top shelf physicists to ask the simple question and every one that responded answered that yes, the first equation describes a perfect black body in a perfect vacuum radiating according to its temperature...and the second equation described a black body not in a vacuum and therefore radiating according to the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings....

You guys like to pretend that you are the smartest fellows in the room, but in order for you to have such a flawed understanding of a perfectly simple equation that elegantly, and simply describes the physical law...clearly you don't have the grasp of the basic science that you believe you do.



Wuwei said:


> I'm talking about radiation physics and you digress into frying pans, marbles, and rust.



You think frying pans, marbles, and rust aren't physics?....you think the laws of physics apply differently to molecules of CO2 than they do to frying pans, marbles and rust?...if so, once again, you prove beyond any doubt that you simply do not have the understanding of physics that you believe that you do and the reason that you have fallen for the alarmist sham of AGW becomes more clear all the time. 



Wuwei said:


> This is where you misunderstand entropy. Your mistake is that you are only focusing on the radiation of the colder body to the hotter body. Don't forget that the *hotter body will always emit more radiation to the colder body than vice versa*. *That radiation imbalance means the hotter body cools and the cooler body heats, and entropy increases.*


*
*
Sorry, but that is where your understanding breaks down...you are under the impression that all matter radiates in every direction according to its temperature....the second expression of the SB law says that is not true...if a radiator is in the presence of another object and it radiates according to the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings, then it is not radiating in all directions according to its temperature...

Your whole belief in net energy exchange is faith...not observation....net energy transfer is an artifact of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model...and in order to be proven, we will need to actually see into the realm of single atom interactions and we aren't even close to that point today...and probably won't be much closer in 100 years.



Wuwei said:


> Again, radiation exchange doesn't violate entropy when it's thermal black body radiation. There is nothing in the definition of entropy that prevents that imbalance of two way radiation.



I suppose nothing in your flawed understanding prevents it, but in reality, if you could read a simple equation, you would see that the very laws of physics prevent it.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 8, 2016)

ding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



You can't blame him...crick taught him to read a graph.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 8, 2016)

mamooth said:


> So after first admitting you did imply she should stop breathing, but that it was okay because you did it nicely, you've now spun completely about, flipflopping totally, and are declaring you did no such thing.



Liberals are so stupid....are you unable to differentiate between asking someone if they have the courage of their convictions....and to act upon those convictions and simply shooting someone because they don't agree with you?  Are you really that stupid hairball?


Never mind, look who I am talking to...of course you are that stupid.


----------



## ding (Dec 8, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Because it is bullshit. That's why. Use this curve to calculate the slope and then get back to me.
> ...


Cool, can you post the graph with the lines you drew?


----------



## ding (Dec 8, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Look at the AGT's of both curves and then get back to me with your bullshit rejection of data.
> ...


Yeah, no.  I never said that.  I said the last 1500 years are included in the graph, not that the circle was the 1500 years.  I was showing the area that you could find them in.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy, but it is not my opinion...



Yes, it's only your opinion. It does not represent science.



SSDD said:


> You think frying pans, marbles, and rust aren't physics?...etc....



Yes physics. No, not radiation physics.



SSDD said:


> ....so I took the time to email a few top shelf physicists to ask the simple question...
> ...
> Sorry, but that is where your understanding breaks down...you are under the impression that all matter radiates in every direction according to its temperature....the second expression of the SB law says that is not true...i



Did you ask them if it was radiation exchange or net radiation, and not one way radiation? If so they would have answered this way:

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
Gustav 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_equilibrium
In 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 • Wikipedia
One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, no matter how far apart, or what partially obstructive, reflective, or refractive, obstacles lie in their path of radiative exchange, not moving relative to one another, 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.

"http://everything.explained.today/Kirchhoff's_law_of_thermal_radiation/"s_law_of_thermal_radiation/
Kirchhoff'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.htm>>>
Imagine 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*.

This is what Max Planck said in 1914.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Page 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..."
---------
If you want more examples, google radiation exchange between black bodies and you will get 1.2 million hits



SSDD said:


> I suppose nothing in your flawed understanding prevents it, but in reality, if you could read a simple equation, you would see that the very laws of physics prevent it.


It is not my understanding it is the understanding of all of physicists. You are essentially saying all physicists have a flawed understanding.

You still didn't give any concept or principle or source that says entropy does not allow two way radiation. You simply can't. Modern science says you are wrong.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 8, 2016)

ding said:


> Yeah, no. I never said that. I said the last 1500 years are included in the graph, not that the circle was the 1500 years. I was showing the area that you could find them in.


Right - the last two pixels of the graph. If that's what you really meant, it would have been clearer if you used an arrow rather than a large circle.




ding said:


> Cool, can you post the graph with the lines you drew?


Look at my earlier post where I gave you the  end points of the lines in terms of deltas, you can use the same ones and draw your own graph.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 8, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> Yes physics. No, not radiation physics.



The physics of energy is the physics of energy...to the forces that be, marbles, frying pans, and rust are the same as for CO2...



Wuwei said:


> Did you ask them if it was radiation exchange or net radiation, and not one way radiation? If so they would have answered this way:



No need....the SB equation that describes a radiator in the presence of other matter is an equation describing gross one way energy movement...sorry that you can't read an equation and understand what it is describing.

Describe where you think you see two way, net energy exchange in this equation....
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ...To me, and to anyone who can read an equation it states that the power of the radiator is equal to its emissivity times the SB constant times its area times the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings....and that is all it says...so describe what you think it says.

As to what modern science says...sorry, I don't have much respect for modern science...modern science has been telling me for years that salt will cause high blood pressure, and that fat will cause heart disease...and on and on and on with what the consensus thought till it was finally proven by some skeptic that the consensus was full of shit.  Every observation ever made supports my position while no observation ever made supports yours...now tell me again about the resonant radio waves that have a temperature.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 8, 2016)

ding said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Goddamn, you dumb fuck, that does not represent the last 1500 years on that graph. The last 1500 years on that graph would be the last 0.75 % of the distance between 200,000 and 0. And you claim to be an engineer. LOL


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 8, 2016)

ding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


OK, dumb ass, let someone with half a brain spell it out for you. In the last glacial period, the CO2 was 300 ppm for a while. In this interglacial period, the max is about 280 ppm. Until we started dumping GHGs into the atmosphere. At present, the CO2 is 400+ ppm. Fortunately the inertia in the climate is preventing an even more rapid climb in temperatures and sea level. But those will increase, and there will be inevitable surprises as we warm, most of which will not be pleasant.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 8, 2016)

westwall said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


*Well, here is one that definitely does just that;





Explore this journal >




Previous article in issue: The impact of new water vapour spectral line parameters on the calculation of atmospheric absorption



Next article in issue: Polar stratospheric cloud impacts on Antarctic stratospheric heating rates

View  issue TOC 
Volume 127, Issue 575
July 2001 Part A 
Pages 1627–1643

Article
Atmospheric absorption of near infrared and visible solar radiation by the hydrogen bonded water dimer


Abstract
Based on the physico-chemical properties of water dimers, their near infrared and visible absorption of solar radiation in the earth's atmosphere is calculated. The calculation uses equilibrium constants determined by statistical mechanics, and a vibrational absorption spectrum determined by a coupled oscillator quantum mechanics model and ab initio quantum chemistry. The resulting total atmospheric absorption was calculated using a line-by-line radiative-transfer model, and depends significantly on the dimer abundance, as well as on the frequency and line width given to vibrational transitions. The best estimate achieved for the possible range of total absorption from 400 nm to 5000 nm by water dimer in the tropics is 1.6–3.3 W m−2. In a global-warming scenario, the increased temperature and water vapour partial pressure result in a nonlinear increase in the absorption of solar radiation by water clusters. Most of the energy from water dimer absorption is deposited in the lower troposphere, particularly in the tropics, tending to make it more convective.
*


----------



## ding (Dec 8, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, no. I never said that. I said the last 1500 years are included in the graph, not that the circle was the 1500 years. I was showing the area that you could find them in.
> ...


No.  I want to see the line that was drawn and I want to see it drawn on the glacial-interglacial plot. How's that?


----------



## ding (Dec 8, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Sorry that is meaningless.  We are in an interglacial cycle and our present AGT is still below the temperature last 4 interglacial cycle peaks.












[/QUOTE]


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> The physics of energy is the physics of energy...to the forces that be, marbles, frying pans, and rust are the same as for CO2...


The subject is entropy as it relates to exchange radiation between objects. Falling marbles, etc. are not examples of exchange radiation.



SSDD said:


> Describe where you think you see two way, net energy exchange in this equation....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That was already covered in a post about one year ago. All physicists and textbooks agree with this derivation:




This derivation defines equation 3 as a *NET* radiation exchange and is taught in physics classes. It demonstrates exchange radiation and definitely not one way radiation. Disagree if you want, but you are alone in your opinion.



SSDD said:


> As to what modern science says...sorry, I don't have much respect for modern science...modern science has been telling me for years that salt will cause high blood pressure, and that fat will cause heart disease...and on and on and on with what the consensus thought till it was finally proven by some skeptic that the consensus was full of shit. Every observation ever made supports my position while no observation ever made supports yours...now tell me again about the resonant radio waves that have a temperature.


We are discussing exchange radiation which is important in climate science. Blood pressure, fat, salt, etc. have nothing to do with that topic.

It would be more productive if you could cite scientific sources that say the S-B equation refers to one way radiation. The insert that I gave above denies what you believe. All scientists will disagree with you.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 8, 2016)

ding said:


> No. I want to see the line that was drawn and I want to see it drawn on the glacial-interglacial plot. How's that?


I told you exactly how to draw the lines. I'm not going to wheel-spin if you can't understand how to handle a very simple exercise in finite difference calculus. You would believe the results more if you did it yourself.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> [Q
> 
> And you think that proves exactly what?....that climate science is right even though they don't have the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that man's CO2 emissions are altering the global climate?....If you do, then you are even more clueless than I first suspected...
> 
> Let me ask, do you think there is observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in that video supporting the A in the AGW hypothesis?...Give me a time stamp...I will be happy to look and point out to you that it isn't...because no such evidence exists...I do enjoy seeing what passes for actual evidence to you people though...endlessly entertaining and it explains much about why you have been so easily duped.




Can you please post your bona fides? I mean, you seem willing to slam climate scientists. What is your evidence that they are wrong other than you basically saying "I don't believe you". There is so much evidence out there it is unbelievable. 
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence
Evidence for global warming
Global Warming Science


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 8, 2016)

*The American Geophysical Union has more climate scientists in it than any other Scientific Society on this planet. This is part of their statement on global warming;

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf*

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. Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

 Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long‐ understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

 Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 8, 2016)

Global Climate Change 

Contributors: Mark Peters — Chair Sally Benson, Thure Cerling, Judith Curry, Yehouda Enzel, Jim Finley, Alan Gillespie, Mickey Glantz, Lynn Soreghan

 Position Statement 

The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning. GSA also supports statements on the global climate change issue made by the joint national academies of science (June, 2005), American Geophysical Union (December, 2003), and American Chemical Society (2004). GSA strongly encourages that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1) adequately research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful, science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for, and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global climate. Background The geologic record provides a direct measure of the frequency, range, and duration of significant global climate changes throughout Earth’s history. Natural phenomena and processes have caused significant alterations of Earth’s climate.

 Of significance to the issue of modern global climate change are the interpretations of the geologic record showing that the rate of change in atmospheric composition, especially with respect to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, is unprecedented in Earth’s recent history. Specifically, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years, and probably higher than at any time in the past 30 million years. In addition, the geologic record shows that global climate change can have significant consequences to Earth’s life systems, with effects ranging from global modification of ecosystem distribution to large-scale extinctions. Because the geologic record provides the important archive of the consequences of global climate changes and harbors examples of icehouse-greenhouse transitions potentially analogous to modern climate change, the current nature and magnitude of global climate change should be evaluated in the context of Earth’s full geologic record.

 Many earth-science disciplines contribute to the scientific and public understanding of the complex, global climate change issue, including sedimentary geology, Quaternary geology, geochemistry, paleontology, and paleohydrology, in addition to oceanography and atmospheric sciences. The understanding of the full spectrum of magnitudes and rates of climate change over geologic time provides boundary conditions for evaluating any human impacts on climate and for producing more reliable predictions of the extent of future climate change. In addition, understanding of active geologic processes provides invaluable information to better understand and monitor ongoing climate change and to develop approaches for adapting to the consequences of climate change. Earth scientists also contribute to research on carbon capture and storage — potential methods for preventing atmospheric carbon dioxide from building up as a result of the burning of fossil fuels and biomass and the production of cement and lime.

*Geologists are the first to see the effects of global warming because they are the people that study the Earth's cryosphere. And both of the American societies state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger.*


----------



## ding (Dec 8, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > No. I want to see the line that was drawn and I want to see it drawn on the glacial-interglacial plot. How's that?
> ...


Let me see the graph with the lines on it.  Can do that?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 8, 2016)

ding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Our current crop of alarmists have issues discerning spatial resolution and graph interpretation.  They simply can not understand how you can fit 1500 years higher resolution into a very small blip on a graph of lesser resolution. That one action removes major swings in the record...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 8, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Global Climate Change
> 
> Contributors: Mark Peters — Chair Sally Benson, Thure Cerling, Judith Curry, Yehouda Enzel, Jim Finley, Alan Gillespie, Mickey Glantz, Lynn Soreghan
> 
> ...



Another political statement that the majority of their members disagree with..  Show a vote on this statement and its point by point validity..

IN other words the science does not support this crap...


----------



## ding (Dec 8, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


And puts it into the proper interglacial cycles context too.  Their heads are exploding which is why they are trying to claim that the rate of change is unprecedented while the data clearly shows it is not.  I am happy enough to give them some rope for now to let them hang themselves.  That way when I actually show them the graphs with the slopes graphically displayed their heads can explode.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 9, 2016)

ding said:


> Sorry that is meaningless.  We are in an interglacial cycle and our present AGT is still below the temperature last 4 interglacial cycle peaks.



Really is like talking to an old rock..isn't it?....They won't see that they are wrong no matter how clearly you point it out...they are to spiritually, emotionally, and politically invested in this scam to ever admit that a scam is precisely what it is.


----------



## peach174 (Dec 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry that is meaningless.  We are in an interglacial cycle and our present AGT is still below the temperature last 4 interglacial cycle peaks.
> ...




It's worse than old rock.
I got underwear that's smarter.


----------



## Crick (Dec 9, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Global Climate Change
> ...



The obvious response is to demand you show us the evidence on which you base your claim that "a majority of their members disagree with" (and didn't yo momma ever tell you not to end a sentence with a preposition?).  I have an easier task.  Show us the dissenters.  If the majority of this organization disagree with this position statement, there must be just oodles of complaints and negative commentary from them.  Where is it Billy?

And if the majority of this organization disagrees with this statement, the same is very likely true of all the national science organizations, ALL OF WHOM have put forth position statements in support of the IPCC conclusions.  Where is all the dissent?  

Let me guess, they all choose to remain silent because they're crooks and the hoax is making them rich.

Yeah... that's good science Billy Boy... really good science.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> The subject is entropy as it relates to exchange radiation between objects. Falling marbles, etc. are not examples of exchange radiation.[/quote[
> 
> And the failure continues...energy exchange is energy exchange and entropy is entropy regardless of where the energy is coming from...
> 
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 9, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> Can you please post your bona fides?



I don't need bona fides to be a skeptic...and one doesn't need bona fides to be right while experts are wrong....to believe otherwise is a logical fallacy.



Dr Grump said:


> I mean, you seem willing to slam climate scientists. What is your evidence that they are wrong other than you basically saying "I don't believe you". There is so much evidence out there it is unbelievable.



I don't need evidence proving that they are wrong...they need observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence proving that they are right...or at least strongly suggesting that they are right...and none exists...not one shred....



Dr Grump said:


> Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence
> Evidence for global warming
> Global Warming Science




OK...I looked at your links...and actually read most of them....what exactly in any, or all of those links do you think represents observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that mankind's CO2 emissions are altering the global climate...feel free to cut and paste or point me towards a particular paragraph...I saw nothing there that rises to the level of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence and we are after all talking about the climate and the atmosphere...an observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical entity.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 9, 2016)

ding said:


> Look at the AGT's of both curves and then get back to me with your bullshit rejection of data.



You're evading again. That ice core chart does not contain the last 1500 years of data, period. Whining and running away won't change that.

Let's summarize all of the ways in that your stupid comparison fails.

You compare charts of two totally different things. One is global average temperature, one is a ice core from a single spot. Apples and oranges fallacy, right off the bat.

Your ice core chart does not contain the last 50 years of data, no matter how much you try to evade that unpleasant fact. Hence, the graphs have different endpoints on the right, again making any meaningful comparison impossible.

Your charts has two wildly different time scales. For some reason, you're demanding a rate of change be calculated based on the last two pixels, which doesn't even represent the last 50 years. That kind of stupidity brings shame upon your alma mater.

Your "natural cycles" theory in general is a total logic failure, as it assumes the present must act like the past, even though current conditions are wildly different from the past.

And your "natural cycles" theory fails outright because it's flatly contradicted by the directly observed data. As just one example, the directly measured stratospheric cooling is the exact opposite of what would happen with natural cycles heating, therefore the natural cycles theory is conclusively disproved.

You're not the first cultist to show up here, all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, thinking he'll show those dirty liberals because he read some propaganda on a kook political blog. We've seen your cultist song and dance over and over. You're now in the stage where, after having your crap science ripped to shreds over and over, you simply pretend not to have seen any of it, and just keep reposting the same debunked nonsense as if it were a mantra that can shield you from reality. That's usually followed by the "declare victory and retreat" thing.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 9, 2016)

westwall said:


> [Almost ALL of which refer to the idiocy of CO2 being classified a pollutant.


 
So you're back to your "death wishes aren't really death wishes when my side does it" defense. Convenient, how you give your own side permission to make unlimited death wishes, because it's all in such good fun. But only your own side, of course. It's part of your "The ends always justify the means, but only for my own side" morality.



> You're so fucking stupid (or intellectually dishonest, you choose) you can't understand the difference between a off color joke and a call to incarcerate and murder people.



Nice projection, considering you just posted an off-color joke video, and then declared it was a call for murder. Just more of that staggering hypocrisy that you're known so well for.

In contrast to your abstract claims about some vague people elsewhere, every denier right here on this board, without exception, is a Stalinist. Without exception, every denier here enthusiastically supports the Republicans attempts to jail climate scientists for the thoughtcrime of doing science which is inconvenient to TheParty. Every. Single. One. No exceptions. I know that because I've asked, over and over, and not a single a denier has ever been willing to say that tactic is wrong. Every one of them toes the party line, and doesn't dare dissent from party dogma.

The two sides are totally different. Not a single rational person here has called for opponents to be jailed. Every denier here calls for it. You are all Stalinists, while we all go with democracy. Just making it clear where we both stand. You're proud Stalinists, and we're decent people.

Now, if you'd like to claim you're not a Stalinist, simply make it very clear how strongly you condemn the Republican attempts to jail scientists and censor science. We'll wait.


----------



## ding (Dec 9, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Look at the AGT's of both curves and then get back to me with your bullshit rejection of data.
> ...


I am not evading.  Why are you limiting NASA to only use data from ice cores?  Are telling me that 50 years ago the AGT was 1C?  We both know that is bullshit.  The present AGT is 1C and that is exactly what the plot that NASA prepared shows for time 0 which is present day.


----------



## ding (Dec 9, 2016)




----------



## Wuwei (Dec 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The subject is entropy as it relates to exchange radiation between objects. Falling marbles, etc. are not examples of exchange radiation.[/quote[
> ...


All the following references define the Stefan Boltzman law specifically as




Stefan-Boltzmann Law
Stefan-Boltzmann law | physics
Stefan-Boltzmann Law -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Physics
http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_03.pdf
The Stefan-Boltzmann law
How to Calculate Heat Emission from a Blackbody Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant - dummies
Stefan-Boltzmann law - Hmolpedia
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/mathis/mathis64.pdf


The following references clearly show how the subtracted form can be simply derived from the above formula using the distributive law.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/l...oltzmann.law/stefan.boltzmann.law.writeup.pdf
Radiation Heat Transfer
Unit Operations in Food Processing - R. L. Earle
http://www.efunda.com/formulae/heat_transfer/radiation/blackbody.cfm
http://www.auburn.edu/academic/classes/matl0501/coursepack/radiation/text.htm

I already gave many references that explicitly say that radiation is exchanged between objects. The word exchange means that it is not one way radiation.

Finally, the second law as defined by entropy, and has no mention of restriction on thermal radiation flowing anywhere with no constraints from the surrounding temperature.

In short the many references of
the definition of the SB equation;
the derivation of the subtracted form;
the science of radiation exchange between any objects;
the law of entropy;​all show that you are totally wrong about your understanding of thermodynamic systems.

You do all this in a vain attempt to show that there is no such thing as back radiation. Your views on the nature of thermodynamics is only a misguided opinion. The entire historic body of science disagrees with your opinion.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> You do all this in a vain attempt to show that there is no such thing as back radiation. Your views on the nature of thermodynamics is only a misguided opinion. The entire historic body of science disagrees with your opinion.



Yanking your own chain like that is called mental masturbation....you let me know when you get an observed, measured instance of back radiation gathered with an instrument at ambient temperature...and also let me know when applying the distributive property to an equation alters reality....


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Yanking your own chain like that is called mental masturbation....you let me know when you get an observed, measured instance of back radiation gathered with an instrument at ambient temperature...and also let me know when applying the distributive property to an equation alters reality....


You are essentially saying the entire historic body of science is doing mental masturbation. Is that the best you can do as a retort? The SB equation as defined by science is a mathematical model of reality. It didn't alter reality. You are altering reality in your own mind.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 9, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> You are essentially saying the entire historic body of science is doing mental masturbation. Is that the best you can do as a retort? The SB equation as defined by science is a mathematical model of reality. It didn't alter reality. You are altering reality in your own mind.



A great deal of it is today...which is why better than 50% of the scientific papers b being published are false...as to the S-B equation...S-B stated it as I posted the equation....you bastardized version is the result of an attempt to make back radiation believable to those not bright enough to bother to look at what S-B wrote and read what the very explicit equation says....

And of course it didn't alter reality...energy transfer is still a one way gross proposition and no amount of unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models will ever make it otherwise.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> ...as to the S-B equation...S-B stated it as I posted the equation....you bastardized version is the result of an attempt to make back radiation believable to those not bright enough to bother to look at what S-B wrote and read what the very explicit equation says....


You are not correct. Stefan stated it as incoming heat and outgoing heat and then combined the two using the distributive law. This is from his original paper:
http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/strahlung/Original/Stefan1879.pdf






Stefan published this in 1879 long before there was any controversy in back-radiation. Note that the bottom of page 413 gives the heat as H into and out of the object. Then he combines them on top of the next page. This image was in my files and I told you about it some time ago.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 9, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Can you please post your bona fides?
> ...



Of course you need to post your bona fides because you're a skeptic. You are the flat earth society of the 21st century. You're the guy that wanted to put Copernicus in jail because he dared suggest the earth went around the sun not the other way around. It is incumbent on you to prove them wrong. They have more than proved their POV. And I call the ice caps mounting and the glaciers retreating as more than enough observed, measured, quantified and empirical evidence. And is just the tip of the iceberg. I can't help it that you don't believe.

But let's put your skepticism aside for a second. Let's say the climate scientists (you know they guys who have spent literally years and thousands of hours studying this shit unlike you) are wrong (they're not). Don't you think it a good idea to stop pumping all this shit into the atmosphere? Don't you think it a good idea to stop fossil fuels fucking up the atmosphere? You think it ok? If so, go live in Beijing for a year. Watch episode 4 of The Crown. Although based on the reign of Queen Elizabeth that episode is dedicated to a week in 1952 where more than an estimated 12,000 people died in London due to what they called the Great Smog. It was when fog and pollution mixed together and created a perfect situation where people with breathing problems died. It lead to the British Parliament passing the Clean Air Act.

Don't do it because you're a anti GW skeptic. Do it because it makes sense.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 10, 2016)

Dr Grump said:


> Of course you need to post your bona fides because you're a skeptic. You are the flat earth society of the 21st century. You're the guy that wanted to put Copernicus in jail because he dared suggest the earth went around the sun not the other way around. It is incumbent on you to prove them wrong. They have more than proved their POV. And I call the ice caps mounting and the glaciers retreating as more than enough observed, measured, quantified and empirical evidence. And is just the tip of the iceberg. I can't help it that you don't believe.



Same old non argument...same old non answer...same old not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that mankind is altering the global temerpature with his CO2 emissions...

And of course I don't need bona fides to state that there is no such evidence in support of the claims of global temperatures rising due to CO2 emissions...I am stating that none exist....and they don't...one needs no special qualifications to make that statement and one needs no special qualifications to deliver them if in fact they existed.

And I certainly am not anti science....i am anti pseudoscience....which is what climate science is today.  Copernicus actually had observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support his claims so he would have been in no danger from me....only from the religious consensus...which describes you....as you would with me if you and yours had your way...you represent the wrong consensus that Copernicus (the skeptic) was fighting against.



Dr Grump said:


> They have more than proved their POV. And I call the ice caps mounting and the glaciers retreating as more than enough observed, measured, quantified and empirical evidence. And is just the tip of the iceberg. I can't help it that you don't believe.



If their point of view was that the climate is changing, then of course they would have enough observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support their claims...and they would have no argument from me...clearly the climate is changing...but then, the climate has always, and is always changing...  That, however is not what the discussion is about...sure the climate is changing...but your side says that mankind is altering the climate with his CO2 emissions....There is the rub...and there is where your side of the argument breaks down....there is not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the argument that MAN IS ALTERING THE GLOBAL CLIMATE WITH HIS CO2 EMISSIONS.   Hell, if you want evidence that the climate is changing, I can provide all that you want.  Here, for example, is evidence of that from the Greenland ice cores covering the past 10,000 years:







No doubt the climate is changing and has always changed...take a look at the graph above.....and relate it to the climate in the northern hemisphere....(ice cores from the antarctic show the same warming spikes by the way)....Look at the Minoan warm period about 3000 years ago...look a the temperature then compared to now...think perhaps glaciers were retreating and arctic ice was melting then?...  How about during the Roman warm period?...how about during the Medieval warm period?...think the ice retreated even further during those periods?

Sure, the global climate is changing...it has always and will always change...is man causing it?..of course not...and again, there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that he is....if you think there is, then by all means lets see it...but evidence that the climate is changing is not evidence that man is causing the change...if you believe that, then it isn't surprising that you have fallen for the scam.



Dr Grump said:


> But let's put your skepticism aside for a second. Let's say the climate scientists (you know they guys who have spent literally years and thousands of hours studying this shit unlike you) are wrong (they're not).



Don't you find it odd that a bunch of guys who spent years and thousands of hours studying an observable, measurable, quantifiable entity such as the atmosphere and the climate don't have the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support their claims that man is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions?



Dr Grump said:


> Don't you think it a good idea to stop pumping all this shit into the atmosphere?



I probably have more draconian ideas regarding pollution than you.....I favor fines of a magnitude that would bankrupt polluters..I favor long prison sentences for polluters. I am a conservationist as opposed to being an environmentalist....if you don't know the difference, then that is a topic for another discussion....suffice it to say that I prefer a clean environment and have no problem with regulations regarding actual pollution...CO2, however is not a pollutant, and there is not the first shred of evidence supporting the claim that more CO2 in the atmosphere causes climate change...again, if you believe it exits, by all means, lets see it.




Dr Grump said:


> Don't you think it a good idea to stop fossil fuels fucking up the atmosphere?



I have no problem at all with regulating emissions that are actually pollution...AGAIN, CO2 is not a pollutant.



Dr Grump said:


> You think it ok? If so, go live in Beijing for a year. Watch episode 4 of The Crown. Although based on the reign of Queen Elizabeth that episode is dedicated to a week in 1952 where more than an estimated 12,000 people died in London due to what they called the Great Smog. It was when fog and pollution mixed together and created a perfect situation where people with breathing problems died. It lead to the British Parliament passing the Clean Air Act.



I agree there, but when you talk about that sort of thing, you are not talking about CO2..which is an entirely different topic...You don't seem to realize that there are any number of actual environmental problems that we can and should be addressing, and that most, if not all of them have solutions that are readily available...they aren't being addressed though because climate science has co opted every one of them and dragged them under the umbrella of anthropogenic global warming...there is no anthropogenic global warming...and because this has happened, actual environmental problems are not, and will not be addressed so long as the anthropogenic global warming scam is sucking all of the air out of the room and all of the treasure out of the coffers.



Dr Grump said:


> Don't do it because you're a anti GW skeptic. Do it because it makes sense.



Tell me Dr. Grump...what is the ideal temperature for life on planet earth?  What has the average mean temperature been throughout most of earth's history?...What has the average atmospheric CO2 concentration been throughout most of earth's history?  What was the average global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration at the time that the climate fell into the ice age that the earth is in the process of exiting at this time?  Can you answer any of those questions?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 10, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > ...as to the S-B equation...S-B stated it as I posted the equation....you bastardized version is the result of an attempt to make back radiation believable to those not bright enough to bother to look at what S-B wrote and read what the very explicit equation says....
> ...



It is little wonder that you think like you do..those equations say nothing of the sort... I don't guess you bothered to translate the German.  Roughly translated...I don't speak German, the sentence at the bottom of page 413 says "for tests, one selects the radiation formula of the 4th powers of the absolute temperatures such as"  and then he writes the absolute temperature of the radiator and the surroundings  to the 4th power.

Then at the top of page 414 he writes "to be taken were A means the temperature of the black body is dependent in large by the cooling rate of the surroundings"

and he essentially writes as I have been saying all along that the radiation emitted by the radiator is determined by the difference in the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of its surroundings....look in the parentheses...and how many sets of parentheses there are.

Here is essentially what he is saying  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   NOT 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   which describes a two way energy exchange and is the "derivative" formula that is used in the soft science climatology texts that have an agenda to push rather than simply teaching physics.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


You just cant get a grasp on the reality of it...  Silly You.. Pathetic really..


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 10, 2016)

SSDD said:


> It is little wonder that you think like you do..those equations say nothing of the sort... I don't guess you bothered to translate the German. Roughly translated...I don't speak German, the sentence at the bottom of page 413 says "for tests, one selects the radiation formula of the 4th powers of the absolute temperatures such as" and then he writes the absolute temperature of the radiator and the surroundings to the 4th power.
> 
> Then at the top of page 414 he writes "to be taken were A means the temperature of the black body is dependent in large by the cooling rate of the surroundings"
> 
> and he essentially writes as I have been saying all along that the radiation emitted by the radiator is determined by the difference in the temperature of the radiator and the temperature of its surroundings....look in the parentheses...and how many sets of parentheses there are.



You keep guessing as though you know what you are talking about. You keep guessing thermodynamic science from your gut and you are always wrong. I have had 3 semesters of German and yes I did translate the German. You insult yourself when you attempt to insult me.

You butchered the translation. German has syntax inversions that you are not aware of. This is what Stefan wrote:

_We choose the law of radiation as the formula of the fourth powers of the absolute temperature thus _
_H1 = A T1^4 . . .  H2 = A T2^4_​_in which A is largely dependent on the surface of the body._ [Later called emissivity.]

_The cooling rate for the bare thermometer bulb is determined by_
[formula with differences of temperatures]​
Look at the top of page 411 of Stefan's paper just under the title, "_II. Uber die Bestimmung ......._"
The translation of the first two sentences is
_The absolute amount of heat radiated by a body can not be determined by such trials. Attempts can only be made on the excess of the amount of heat emitted by the body over the heat absorbed by it at the same time._​
Now don't try to tell me that means one way radiation. It simply does not. He uses "heat", "emitted", "absorbed" and "same time" in the same sentence. 

Kirchkoff recognized that heat was radiated and coined the term black body radiation in 1860. Kirchoff recognized that the value "A" in the first two equations were the same for emission and absorption 19 years before Stefan's law. But he didn't know why. Einstein explained it around 50 years later . At that time nobody knew anything about electromagnetic radiation, but they were smart enough to know that heat radiates both ways between bodies.

You keep guessing as though you know what you are talking about and then insult me and the entire body of scientists over the last 140 years. You don't know the science. I just can't understand why you do that to yourself. If you don't want to believe AGW do it some other way.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2016)




----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> You keep guessing as though you know what you are talking about and then insult me and the entire body of scientists over the last 140 years. You don't know the science. I just can't understand why you do that to yourself. If you don't want to believe AGW do it some other way.



Sorry guy...I am not guessing, and this would not even be a topic of discussion if you could read a simple equation and understand what it is describing...

Anyway, after all that, the bottom line of your whole argument is that any challenge to  the second law of thermodynamics which states that 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 is the result of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical model and that there is no observation of either heat or energy ever having moved spontaneously from a cool area to a warm area.....thanks...that is what I have been saying all along.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > lol, why are you lying? The circle is showing the area to look at you idiot. The last 1500 years are on this graph. If your argument were stronger, you wouldn't need to squelch discussion of the data, dipshit.
> ...


Ok, are you ready to have this discussion now?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 11, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Sorry guy...I am not guessing, and this would not even be a topic of discussion if you could read a simple equation and understand what it is describing...


*This isn't about me. Let me remind you again that it is about current science:*

All the following references define the Stefan Boltzman law specifically as




Stefan-Boltzmann Law
Stefan-Boltzmann law | physics
Stefan-Boltzmann Law -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Physics
http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_03.pdf
The Stefan-Boltzmann law
How to Calculate Heat Emission from a Blackbody Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant - dummies
Stefan-Boltzmann law - Hmolpedia
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/mathis/mathis64.pdf

The following references clearly show how the subtracted form can be simply derived from the above formula using the distributive law.




http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/strahlung/Original/Stefan1879.pdf see pp 413-414
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/l...oltzmann.law/stefan.boltzmann.law.writeup.pdf
Radiation Heat Transfer
Unit Operations in Food Processing - R. L. Earle
Blackbody Radiation Theory in Heat Transfer
Heat Transfer: Radiation

These references explicitly state that *thermal radiation is exchanged between objects*. The word exchange means that it is not one way radiation.

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium
Thermal equilibrium • Wikipedia
Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation explained
http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf

Finally, the second law as defined by entropy, has no mention of any constraints on the flow of thermal radiation from cold to warm objects.

*In short the many references of*
*the definition of the SB equation;
the derivation of the subtracted form;
the science of radiation exchange between any objects;
the law of entropy;*​*all show that you are totally wrong about your understanding of thermodynamic systems.*

You do all this in a vain attempt to show that there is no such thing as back radiation. Your views on the nature of thermodynamics are only a misguided opinion.

*Again, let me remind you that this isn't about me or my ideas. It is about you and your denial of the entire historic body of science from 140 years ago to present, which totally disagrees with your opinion.*


----------



## SSDD (Dec 11, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy...I am not guessing, and this would not even be a topic of discussion if you could read a simple equation and understand what it is describing...
> ...




And on and on and still you can't read an equation....this equation...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  is not a derivative of the first equation using the distributive property...it isn't a law by the way...you seem to have a very frail grasp of even basic math....and that equation says that the amount of energy radiating from a black body is  equal to the emissivity of the body times the S-B constant times its area times the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings to the 4th power...nothing there suggests two way energy flow...if you want to apply the distributive property and describe a false two way energy flow, then the equation would look like this...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ...as you can see, the derivative is clearly false as it requires a double use of the S-B constant and nowhere in anywhere do you find that as an acceptable formula....that equation falsely says that the amount of energy radiating from a black body is equal to its area times the product of its emissivity, the S-B constant  and its own temperature  minus the area of the surroundings times the product of the emissivity of its surroundings, the S-B constant and the temperature of its surroundings to the 4th power.  You clearly don't grasp even basic algebra so it is pointless to talk to you on the topic...come back when you can write a formula and actually describe what it is saying...


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry guy...I am not guessing, and this would not even be a topic of discussion if you could read a simple equation and understand what it is describing...
> ...


I guess not.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 11, 2016)

ding said:


> Ok, are you ready to have this discussion now?


The only discussion I can think of is that your data below the graph doesn't pass my sanity check. Let me know where I am missing something.

How are you able to get starting and ending years to 6 significant figures on a graph whose resolution is no more than 3 significant figures?

The line you label purple looks orange to me.

The data from years 1988 to 0 looks like it spans 10C, not 1.6C. That would make the most recent slope more like 0.005 rather than 0.0008 deg/yr


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 11, 2016)

SSDD said:


> And on and on and still you can't read an equation..





SSDD said:


> You clearly don't grasp even basic algebra so it is pointless to talk to you on the topic...come back when you can write a formula and actually describe what it is saying...


Read my post 248 again. It isn't about me. It's about the entire body of physicists and science over the last 140 years. 

Your ideas are muddled. The areas are quite obviously the same and Kirchoff and Einstein showed that the SB constant sigma is indeed the same for absorption and emission. You are still arguing against things you don't understand.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, are you ready to have this discussion now?
> ...


It is called math.  You do know how to calculate slope, right?  You take the change in temperature divided by the change in time to arrive at dC/dT.   Over the last 1988 years there was a 1.6C rise in temperature.  

Are you being obtuse?  Because this is pretty basic stuff here.  Why aren't you able to grasp this?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 11, 2016)

ding said:


> It is called math. You do know how to calculate slope, right? You take the change in temperature divided by the change in time to arrive at dC/dT. Over the last 1988 years there was a 1.6C rise in temperature.
> 
> Are you being obtuse? Because this is pretty basic stuff here. Why aren't you able to grasp this?


You didn't address the points I raised. If you want to turn this into an ego trip game, I'm simply not interested.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > It is called math. You do know how to calculate slope, right? You take the change in temperature divided by the change in time to arrive at dC/dT. Over the last 1988 years there was a 1.6C rise in temperature.
> ...


Yes.  I did.  What point did I not address?  Is your point that the slope cannot be calculated?


----------



## polarbear (Dec 11, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And on and on and still you can't read an equation..
> ...


Now what you said here that`s funny. You invoke Einstein and Kirchhoff to pretend you know something about physics and don`t even know how to spell Kirchhoff`s name.
Neither one said what you are saying here. Where did you get that from? The "Skeptical Science" cartoonist`s blog or from some other pseudo science group-think consensus? 
Josef Stefan and Ludwig Boltzmann`s constant  σ  has nothing to do with absorption.
In addition to that it can only be applied to IDEAL black bodies and the earth isn`t one.
It DOES NOT absorb all emr regardless of frequency nor does it have an _ε_ of 1.0.
If it were then you could write a program to predict global temperature with a vintage commodore 64.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2016)

polarbear said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Boom.. Let me add....


----------



## mamooth (Dec 11, 2016)

ding said:


> t is called math.  You do know how to calculate slope, right?



Actually, it's called "Look at ding try to lie with statistics again."

Why are you using an ice core graph that lacks any recent data to make conclusions about recent temperature rise? You can't take a derivative of data that isn't there, but that's exactly what you're trying to do.

And Wuwei has repeatedly ripped you apart concerning scale issues, so no need to add to that.

Your stupid errors have been pointed out over and over, so you can't use the excuse you didn't know about them. Posting the same debunked crap over and over means you're either a deliberate fraud, or you're monumentally stupid. There aren't any other options. So which is it, dishonesty or stupidity?

Oh, this will be where you refuse to address the points, and instead post the same debunked logical fallacies again. It's all a gutless cultist like you is capable of, mindless propaganda bleating.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > t is called math.  You do know how to calculate slope, right?
> ...


When are you going to acknowledge that our present temperature is 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the last four interglacials?


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2016)




----------



## mamooth (Dec 11, 2016)

ding said:


> When are you going to acknowledge that our present temperature is 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the last four interglacials?



First, as that's false, of course I won't acknowledge it. Again, it goes back to the fact that you're deliberately running from, which is that your graph does come up to the present.

And weepy one, you don't get to ask any new questions until you answer all of the ones that you've run away from.

So, reach down now, try to locate your balls, and address the issue. Why are you trying to fake things with statistics? Are you a deliberate fraud, or just a brainless cultist?

And one more thing, oh great yellow-bellied one. Content-free spam in this subforum is prohibited by board rules. That includes your stupid images. You won't get another warning from me. Any more of it gets reported.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2016)

mamooth said:


> First, as that's false, of course I won't acknowledge it. Again, it goes back to the fact that you're deliberately running from, which is that your graph does come up to the present.



What?  Why do you believe that our present temperature is NOT 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the past four interglacials?  Can you share the data that you are basing that on?


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > When are you going to acknowledge that our present temperature is 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the last four interglacials?
> ...


I think you shouldn't wait,  I think you should report it now.  It is my sincerest desire that everyone starts to repost these graphs.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 11, 2016)

polarbear said:


> Now what you said here that`s funny. You invoke Einstein and Kirchhoff to pretend you know something about physics and don`t even know how to spell Kirchhoff`s name.
> Neither one said what you are saying here. Where did you get that from? The "Skeptical Science" cartoonist`s blog or from some other pseudo science group-think consensus?
> Josef Stefan and Ludwig Boltzmann`s constant σ has nothing to do with absorption.
> In addition to that it can only be applied to IDEAL black bodies and the earth isn`t one.
> ...


Thank you for the correction. I see that you spelled S and B's full names impeccably. Did you spell that from memory too? You are wrong about sigma regarding absorption. I remember the average emissivity of earth is over 0.95. That includes ice, water, dirt, etc. However plants have a slightly lower emissivity. You can look it up if you're interested. Even if the emissivity were low, it is still taken care of in the SB equation.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Now what you said here that`s funny. You invoke Einstein and Kirchhoff to pretend you know something about physics and don`t even know how to spell Kirchhoff`s name.
> ...


Dude... you should have stayed down.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > When are you going to acknowledge that our present temperature is 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the last four interglacials?
> ...


Here you go, sweetie.... report me.

Climate Change Likely Caused Deadly 2016 Avalanche In Tibet


----------



## mamooth (Dec 11, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Yanking your own chain like that is called mental masturbation....you let me know when you get an observed, measured instance of back radiation gathered with an instrument at ambient temperature.



As we've pointed out before, anyone can buy a longwave IR camera, one that works at ambient temperature, which does exactly that. Point it at the sky, it displays in image showing the differing temperatures of clouds and sky. It is clearly measuring the IR radiation coming down from the very cold sky. That is, the backradiation.

We've also pointed out that sensors never needed to be chilled to measure backradiation. Chilling just lowered the thermal noise, making the image clearer. Modern electronics found around around that need for chilling.

Now, wait until you see how SSDD handwaves that away. It's both hilarious and pathetic.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 11, 2016)

ding said:


> Why do you believe that our present temperature is NOT 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the past four interglacials?



Because, as has been pointed out over and over, your graph doesn't show the present.

And it points at a single location on earth, so no conclusions from global temperature can be drawn from it.

And the time scale is too compressed for any rate-of-change data to be drawn from it.

This is issue has been studied in detail, by very smart people, and good summary is here. Read it. Try to learn about the many, many ways that you've faceplanted here.

The Last Interglacial Part Two - Why was it so warm?


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you believe that our present temperature is NOT 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the past four interglacials?
> ...


lol, what do you believe the present AGT is?

Let me make it easy for you, lol.

Global Warming : Feature Articles


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you believe that our present temperature is NOT 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the past four interglacials?
> ...


Are you struggling to find out what the current AGT is?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 12, 2016)

mamooth said:


> As we've pointed out before, anyone can buy a longwave IR camera, one that works at ambient temperature, which does exactly that.
> Now, wait until you see how SSDD handwaves that away. It's both hilarious and pathetic.



Sorry hairball...fooling yourself with instrumentation again...but I am sure that you believe your own story.


----------



## Crick (Dec 12, 2016)

Why would it require cooling to measure infrared but none whatsoever to measure visible light.  What is the qualitative difference between the two Whizzo?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> Why would it require cooling to measure infrared but none whatsoever to measure visible light.  What is the qualitative difference between the two Whizzo?



Because you idiot, that with reflected light, you are seeing light reflected from a light source..ususally the sun, or a light bulb...in either case, the source is generally very hot.

if you are an engineer of any sort other than custodial...I am the king of Siam.


----------



## Crick (Dec 12, 2016)

I asked for the "QUALITATIVE" difference.  "Generally very hot" besides being worthlessly vague, is not a qualitative difference.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> I asked for the "QUALITATIVE" difference.  "Generally very hot" besides being worthlessly vague, is not a qualitative difference.




Sorry...forgot there for a second that I was talking to an abject idiot...if you are seeing something in the visible range and the light source is the sun, then the light source is something like 10,000 degrees....if it is light reflected from a standard light bulb, then the source is somewhere upwards of 4000 degrees....now if you don't know the difference between IR and visible, then I am afraid that you are even more stupid than I thought and frankly, I have always thought you to be a complete idiot...what is stupider than that?  A cretin perhaps?...an imbecile,


----------



## IanC (Dec 12, 2016)

polarbear said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




why are you insulting Wuwei while at the same time ignoring SSDD's nonsense?

you did the same thing years ago when you fought me tooth and nail while ignoring wirebender's equally absurd nonsense. actually I think SSDD and wirebender are one and the same but that is a different topic.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 12, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Now what you said here that`s funny. You invoke Einstein and Kirchhoff to pretend you know something about physics and don`t even know how to spell Kirchhoff`s name.
> ...


No I am German and should therefore know how to spell a German name. In addition to that we read their publications in the language they were written in, which again is German.
If you have a physics book in which you have been reading that the Stefan-Boltzmann constant has anything to do with absorption then you better chuck it out.
Why are you throwing this in?  Earth "average" _Ɛ= 0.95 ? _Is that supposed to be a deflection from that St-B constant relating to absorption nonsense?
Okay I`ll oblige you..
Not that I really care what you think is the "average emissivity" of earth  or who says so that it is 0.95 because there is no way that earth can emulate an ideal black body with a 95% efficiency.
Just what is an *IDEAL* black body in your mind?
Obviously just a bunch of dirt ice water etc is all you need to get within 0.05 of  _Ɛ= _1.0 for which you need... aah shit I`m too lazy for all that so I`ll copy&paste it:
An approximate realization of a black surface is a hole in the wall of a large enclosure (see below). Any light entering the hole is reflected indefinitely or absorbed inside and is unlikely to re-emerge, making the hole a nearly perfect absorber. The radiation confined in such an enclosure may or may not be in thermal equilibrium, depending upon the nature of the walls and the other contents of the enclosure.
Construction of black bodies with emissivity as close to one as possible remains a topic of current interest




And while I was at it I also came across this:
_



_ is the effective emissivity of earth, about 0.612
If you disagree then take it up with the authors of this page:
Climate model - Wikipedia


----------



## polarbear (Dec 12, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Yanking your own chain like that is called mental masturbation....you let me know when you get an observed, measured instance of back radiation gathered with an instrument at ambient temperature.
> ...


That brings an interesting quiz to mind.
Suppose you point an IR sensor at a target which is an ice cube right next to another same sized object which is at +20C. How many watts/m^2 should you see on the instrument`s display?
The ice cube @ 0 C radiates just under 314 w/m^2 and the 20 degC object radiates almost 418 w/m^
I take it you would say that the instrument would display the sum of both, a total of 732 w/m^2 ?
And if I can get only 400 watts/m^2 you would say that there is something wrong with my IR gun?
Buy one and try it out. Maybe you can come up with an explanation why it`s never higher than that. Off the shelf these are calibrated for Temperature but from that you can calculate the watts/m^ 2. Mine has a laser pointer so it`s quite easy to center it and you can find out the proper distance just as easily if you move back till the indicated temperature deviates to below the known temperature of the target.
I also have a thermal imaging camera, but it does not have a USB to connect to another storage device else I would upload some pictures.
If I put a cold object next to a warm one, the side of the warm object facing the cold one shows up cooler than the rest of that object...conforming to "a cold object can make a warm object even warmer" my camera should not see what it is seeing...explain that


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> Why would it require cooling to measure infrared but none whatsoever to measure visible light.  What is the qualitative difference between the two Whizzo?



A LOT of cameras are cooled for "low photon imaging". BOTH visible and IR.. It's one of tricks we do in imaging instrumentation. The purpose is to reduce the self-generated thermal noise so that the images are cleaner. Has NOTHING to do with the amount of photons they intercept as heat or light.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 12, 2016)

polarbear said:


> And while I was at it I also came across this:
> _
> 
> 
> ...



You are wrong about sigma regarding absorption. 
Emissivity is wavelength dependent. The area of interest is IR from 3 to 20 microns. It varies around 0.95.


----------



## IanC (Dec 13, 2016)

polarbear said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Been drinking Bernie?

Accusing crick of believing that a gallon of 10C water added to a gallon of 40C water will result in 50C water is pretty low even for you.

If it is minus 20C outside your warm object will be warmer if you put a block of ice at only minus 5C next to it. So what was your point?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 13, 2016)

IanC said:


> why are you insulting Wuwei while at the same time ignoring SSDD's nonsense?
> 
> you did the same thing years ago when you fought me tooth and nail while ignoring wirebender's equally absurd nonsense. actually I think SSDD and wirebender are one and the same but that is a different topic.



What is this obsession you have with me and a poster who is no longer here?...We have been through this before...the moderators checked and confirmed that me and the other guy are not the same person.  At your suggestion, I read quite a few of his posts and his arguments and ideas are different from mine although he regularly pointed out that there was no such thing as back radiation also.  In addition, he used mathematics far more heavily than I ever could.  Get over your obsession and admit that there is no such thing as back radiation.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 13, 2016)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


No I have not been accusing anybody of anything and in addition to that (if you read my post) that was addressed to mamooth *not Crick*
It`s a very simple question to answer if you got an IR sensor. Since you decided to play referee here you might as well try it out and answer that question.
It`s a simple experiment. Put 2 soda cans in the fridge and let them cool off let 2 more warm up to room temperature. Then point the IR detector at center between the 2 cans which are say at +20C and note the reading + the distance from the cans
Then use the cold cans also side by side and repeat the procedure. After that replace one of the cans with a cold one and tell me what you get for a reading.
If you don`t want to get an instrument like that then just do the math.
Would you do average the 2 temperatures [in K of course] first and  then multiply the 4 th power of that average by σ or not ?
If you choose to do it like that then explain why you would not do it the same way if you know the temperature of one body and the watts/m^2 of the other one...as is the case if you wanted to calculate how a X-amount of radiation from a colder source would heat another body which is warmer.
And also do explain why in your mind a simple physics quiz could be an insult. Mamooth whom I addressed did not complain about it. Anyway forgive me I`m currently not involved with any of the so called universities and "progressive" campus policy, so did not get the memo how to avoid intruding into the "safe space" of sissies


----------



## polarbear (Dec 13, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > And while I was at it I also came across this:
> ...


You should heed common sense which tells you "if you are in a hole quit digging"
But you persist digging deeper and doubling down.
For the last time *σ has nothing to do with absorption and an emission spectrum of a substance has nothing to do with absorption !!!*
And then there is that picture you posted with no link to the source,
I found it anyways, it  was:
Far-infrared surface emissivity and climate
No wonder you concealed it because they clearly state that this graph is not based on actual data but is a model:


> Far-IR emissivity can be measured from spectrally resolved observations, *but such measurements have not yet been made.* ...
> there is no comprehensive knowledge of angularly averaged terrestrial surface emissivity outside of the laboratory at far-IR wavelengths because there are no comprehensive measurements at those wavelengths. What is known about far-IR surface emissivity is derived from laboratory measurements and research on planetary environment


Then you pulled this out of your hat: "The area of interest is IR from 3 to 20 microns."
The author of that graph clearly stated this:


> Terrestrial emission plays a critical role in the climate system (1), and over 99% of this radiation occurs in the wavelength range from 5 to 100 μm (2,000 cm−1 to 100 cm−1). However, there have been very few spectrally resolved measurements of terrestrial emission at wavelengths between 15.4 μm and 100 μm (650 cm−1 to 100 cm−1), often referred to as the far infrared,


That graph shows 5μm and only up to 50μm but no matter that`s where they say 99% of the IR energy is radiated...their "area of interest" extends to 15.4 μm because of the CO2 absorption band.
So let`s re-hash why and what exactly I did not agree with in your original statement where you said:
"The average emissivity of earth water,ice, dirt and plants is 0.95" and now you finally admit that it is wavelength dependent because it dawned on you that it does depend on the material which emits the radiation. I also showed you *with a link  *that the earth average emissivity is ~ 0.612
Right here:
Climate model - Wikipedia


> _
> 
> 
> 
> _ is the effective emissivity of earth, about 0.612


But you still persist that it is 0.95
And I don`t know why you can`t wrap your head around the difference between absorption and emission.
Both are depending on which substance you are dealing with...the entire field of spectroscopy hinges on that and a black body does not care about the wavelength. It absorbs at every wavelength and emits a continuous frequency spectrum that depends only on the body's temperature.
If you can`t understand that it`s your problem and I don`t really care what you believe.
I wish there were an english word for "rechthaberisch" it would describe you and others here to the "T" but since there isn`t I`ll quote Albert Einstein who said "Manche glauben dass Einbildung eine Ausbildung ist"
Auf wiedersehen und merry Christmas


----------



## Crick (Dec 13, 2016)

Try "know-it-all"

And I think the problem may be that 0.612 is the EFFECTIVE emissivity.  The actual emissivity may be something completely different and may be precisely what is called for depending on the application.


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2016)

mamooth said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you believe that our present temperature is NOT 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the past four interglacials?
> ...


Look... it's catching on, lol 

Late fall and -10 F in Chicago...global warming?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 13, 2016)

polarbear said:


> I also showed you *with a link *that the earth average emissivity is ~ 0.612



Crick is right. The source was looking at a simple model that gave an average that included clouds. Your source says,
_This is because the above equation represents the effective radiative temperature of the Earth (including the clouds and atmosphere) ... This very simple model is quite instructive, ..._​
Space Images | NASA Spacecraft Maps Earth's Global Emissivity
_Narrowband emissivities less than 0.85 are typical for most desert and semi-arid areas due to the strong quartz absorption feature (reststrahlen band) between 8-9.5 μm range, whereas the emissivity of vegetation, water and ice cover are generally greater than 0.95 and spectrally flat in the 8-12 μm range._​
http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/lst/Ogawa2004_emissivity.pdf
_The range of the broadband emissivity was found to be between 0.85 and 0.96 for the desert area._ [Sahara]​
https://www-cave.larc.nasa.gov/pdfs/Wilber.NASATchNote99.pdf
Look at page 13-14. For emissivities of all kinds of earth coverage. All of them are way above 0.612

Please try to understand what your source is actually saying.

I am not interested in continuing your discourse on emissivity.  You really don't understand it. I don't know why you are so obsessed with it. It has no bearing on the physical principles of the S-B equation since it is already explicitly included in the equation.



polarbear said:


> For the last time *σ has nothing to do with absorption and an emission spectrum of a substance has nothing to do with absorption !!!*



Sigma is a constant. It has nothing to do with spectra. The emissivity is a function of wavelength.  However your original question was.


polarbear said:


> If you have a physics book in which you have been reading that the Stefan-Boltzmann constant has anything to do with absorption then you better chuck it out.


You are wrong. Sigma is in the equation derived from the SB equation. Sigma and emissivity are the same for both absorption and emission of energy. The equation has two terms. One involves emission and the other involves absorption.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> You are wrong. Sigma is in the equation derived from the SB equation. Sigma and emissivity are the same for both absorption and emission of energy. The equation has two terms. One involves emission and the other involves absorption.



You really don't have a clue do you?   That equation has nothing whatsoever to do with absorption....That equation EXPLICITLY states:  The amount of energy that a black body radiates is equal to its emissivity times the S-B constant times its area times the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings to the 4th power....there is no mention in that equation about absorption...it is all about the amount of energy the black body is radiating....hang it up guy...you keep proving beyond question that you don't have even a loose grip on the basics.

Just for entertainment's sake though, how about you state in straight forward terms what you think that equation is stating...in the same format as I just told you what it is actually saying.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Just for entertainment's sake though, how about you state in straight forward terms what you think that equation is stating...in the same format as I just told you what it is actually saying.


There you go:




This is by far the clearest way of thinking about it


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Just for entertainment's sake though, how about you state in straight forward terms what you think that equation is stating...in the same format as I just told you what it is actually saying.
> ...



I was pretty sure that you didn't have a clue....thanks for confirming...I asked you to state in your own words what you thought the equation YOU POSTED said...You cut and paste a different equation...as an explanation for what you believe the equation YOU POSTED actually said....you understand equations like crick understands graphs....that would be not at all.

But again, for entertainment's sake, tell me how you believe 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  is making the same mathematical statement as


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 14, 2016)

SSDD said:


> I asked you to state in your own words what you thought the equation YOU POSTED said...You cut and paste a different equation...as an explanation for what you believe the equation YOU POSTED actually said....you understand equations like crick understands graphs....that would be not at all.



My own words would be very similar to the way science says it: equation 3. The final equation you referred to is at the far right.



SSDD said:


> But again, for entertainment's sake, tell me how you believe
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You make a statement that is incorrect and expect me to respond to it for entertainment's sake.
It's *not* making the same mathematical statement It's only making half. Your first equation references Re, which is emission only. A similar equation Ra represents absorption. The net energy transfer is the difference, as in your second equation, and derived in equation 3.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 14, 2016)

polarbear said:


> The ice cube @ 0 C radiates just under 314 w/m^2 and the 20 degC object radiates almost 418 w/m^
> I take it you would say that the instrument would display the sum of both, a total of 732 w/m^2 ?



No, I wouldn't. 

If each surface filled part of the aperture view, you should get a number somewhere between the two individual numbers.

Just like you did.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2016)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > The ice cube @ 0 C radiates just under 314 w/m^2 and the 20 degC object radiates almost 418 w/m^
> ...


You ever figure out what the present AGT is, lol?


----------



## westwall (Dec 14, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > I also showed you *with a link *that the earth average emissivity is ~ 0.612
> ...







I notice that you all rely on "simple" models.  Get back to me when you have a model at least as complex as what they use to model aero pieces for an F1 race car.  THEIR models actually model reality.  Unlike yours.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 14, 2016)

mamooth said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > The ice cube @ 0 C radiates just under 314 w/m^2 and the 20 degC object radiates almost 418 w/m^
> ...


Good answer and I never REALLY thought you would add them. That was meant just as a joke anyways.
Matter of fact you do get a number somewhere between the 2 individual numbers.
But here is the problem and why I posted and addressed it to you:
Look at Spencer`s experiment
Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still «  Roy Spencer, PhD
*Experiment Results Show a Cool Object Can Make a Warm Object Warmer Still*
August 28th, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.









I recorded temperatures every 5 secs with the plate alternately exposed to a view of the ice for 5 minutes, then with the ice covered for 5 minutes. This cycling was repeated five times. The results are shown in Fig. 3. What we see is just what I would expect, that the temperature of the hot plate increases with time when its view of the ice is blocked by the room-temperature sheet.





And he leads off by saying this:
The experiment shown below does not prove that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere perform such a function, only that it is _not a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics for a cooler object emitting infrared radiation to keep a warm object warmer that it would otherwise be if the cooler object was not present_.
His conclusion is:

*Conclusion*
There is no violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in the experiment; a cool object can make a warm object even warmer still through infrared radiative effects. The phenomenon can only happen, though, if the cool object replaces something that is even colder, and thereby reduces the rate at which the warm object loses infrared energy to its surroundings. In this experiment, the room temperature plate takes the place of the ice which still emits at around 300 Watts per sq. meter; in the climate system, the atmosphere takes the place of deep space, which emits energy at close to 0 Watts per sq. meter. 

So what do you think Spencer proved with his experiment?
Certainly not that a cold object can make a warm object even warmer. All it did prove is, that when the warm object was exposed to the uncovered ice box is that the colder object* cooled *off the warmer one and that a warm object next to a warmer one reduces the cooling of the warmer object...but not that this second object heated up the warmer one even more. *That would imply that the second object is a heat source*
And this is a meteorologist who is or was the Principal Research Scientist at the U of Alabama and a "former NASA Scientist"
No way would or should make a real physicist commit such a blunder. Amazing how low the bar is set at NASA for climate "scientists". That`s why some people call it pseudo science.
And you say?


----------



## Crick (Dec 15, 2016)

Why do you people have such a problem with net transfer?  Until I came here, I never met ANYONE who didn't understand the process instantly.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> Why do you people have such a problem with net transfer?  Until I came here, I never met ANYONE who didn't understand the process instantly.




Still waiting for some observed, measured, quantified evidence of net energy transfer taken with instruments at ambient temperature...till that happens, net transfer only exists within unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...and models aren't reality.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you people have such a problem with net transfer?  Until I came here, I never met ANYONE who didn't understand the process instantly.
> ...


If you don't believe in net transfer of radiation and you disagree that entropy allows net transfer. Do you disbelieve the properties of entropy too? Just what do you believe that stops photons from being emitted from colder objects to warmer objects.

Since entropy is a mathematical model. What substitute to a mathematical model do you have that makes you disbelieve net thermal energy flow?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> If you don't believe in net transfer of radiation and you disagree that entropy allows net transfer. Do you disbelieve the properties of entropy too? Just what do you believe that stops photons from being emitted from colder objects to warmer objects.
> 
> Since entropy is a mathematical model. What substitute to a mathematical model do you have that makes you disbelieve net thermal energy flow?



The 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.

Let me know when they rewrite the law to support your view.


----------



## IanC (Dec 15, 2016)

polarbear said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...





> *Conclusion*
> There is no violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in the experiment; a cool object can make a warm object even warmer still through infrared radiative effects. The phenomenon can only happen, though, if the cool object replaces something that is even colder, and thereby reduces the rate at which the warm object loses infrared energy to its surroundings. In this experiment, the room temperature plate takes the place of the ice which still emits at around 300 Watts per sq. meter; in the climate system, the atmosphere takes the place of deep space, which emits energy at close to 0 Watts per sq. meter.



Spencer proved exactly what he set out to prove. Your so-called criticism agrees with what he stated.


Personally I think Spencer should have emphasized that the warm object has a heat source, and that the temperature of the warm object is a combination of both energy input  and energy output. Without an energy source everything just cools.






Look at the bottom graph. with the ice shielded the temperature jumps two degrees, when the ice is exposed it drops down two degrees. the local conditions changed and the temperature equation changed and the temperature moved to reflect that change. It is easier to visualize how the heated plate quickly cools and stabilizes when exposed to the ice than it is to understand what is happening when the ice is shielded and the plate starts to warm up. Where does the energy needed to warm up the plate come from? 

It comes from the energy NOT lost to the environment. That energy is stored in the plate and is expressed as an increase in temperature. The energy stored is exactly the same as the extra energy released when  the plate is exposed to the ice and cools down.

Now switch over to the Earth and its atmosphere. There is a tremendous amount of energy stored in the atmosphere as kinetic and potential energy. Energy that would be directly lost to deep space if no solar input was present to keep it aloft. Everything above zero degrees Kelvin radiates according to its temperature. Everything can be either warmer or cooler than its surroundings but it is always radiating. The atmosphere is cooler than the surface but warmer than space but it sends radiation to both the surface and to space.

Just like Spencer's experiment, the atmosphere is cooler than the surface (plate) but not as cool as space (ice). The presence of the atmosphere increases the surface temperature by lowering heat loss to space, the energy not lost to space is the source of temperature change at the surface.

Still dont believe me? Imagine what would happen if solar input just stopped. The Earth would continue to radiate and cool. Until all the stored energy was lost to space as the atmosphere collapsed into a frozen crust on the surface. 

Matter at any temperature can be a net absorber or emitter of radiation. A glass of ice water melts above 0C or freezes solid below 0C but it is giving off the same amount of radiation until it does one or the other.


----------



## IanC (Dec 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't believe in net transfer of radiation and you disagree that entropy allows net transfer. Do you disbelieve the properties of entropy too? Just what do you believe that stops photons from being emitted from colder objects to warmer objects.
> ...




So what? No one is arguing against that. The Sun is the energy source doing work on the Earth. 

Everything radiates according to its temperature (and emissivity). Heat is the net flow of energy. Radiation is only one form of energy transfer but it is different because it is passed in discrete individual packets that cannot be changed or cancelled out except in the presence of matter. Once created photons exist in their original form until they interact with a bit of matter. The creation of photons is controlled by individual atomic scale events, not by the general temperature conditions of a distant target.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> The 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.
> 
> Let me know when they rewrite the law to support your view.


You are quoting the old refrigerator law. They didn't know what thermal radiation was back then. That law was rewritten long ago in terms of entropy. Entropy doesn't have constraints on flow of EM radiation and you know it. You are being a troll now.


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 15, 2016)

ding said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



So would you agree then that when AGT exceeds any of those previous interglacial peaks we have empirical evidence of AGW?


----------



## ding (Dec 15, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


If it exceeded the error bar, sure. What do you have?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2016)

IanC said:


> Everything radiates according to its temperature (and emissivity).



We have been through that and you lost...everything in a vacuum radiates according to its temperature...take it out of the vacuum and it radiates according to the difference between its own temperature and the temperature of its surroundings...

\


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 15, 2016)

ding said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Reading the article where you found these graphs indicates that in the past 100 years we're warming at a rate 10 times faster than the average warmup rate following an ice-age.  That indicates we'll be exceeding these peaks rather soon.  And it begs the question, "What do we know about that's been happening in the last 100 years that wasn't happening 400000 or even 120000 years ago that might cause a 10x faster rate of warming."

_As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming_


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> You are quoting the old refrigerator law. They didn't know what thermal radiation was back then. That law was rewritten long ago in terms of entropy. Entropy doesn't have constraints on flow of EM radiation and you know it. You are being a troll now.



there are no particular refrigerator laws of physics...the 2nd law of thermodynamics preludes a perfect refrigerator...you really don't have a clue.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



Of course not...those are just interglacial temperatures...go back to the time before the ice started forming and the temperature was far higher than the present..


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



There are no proxy reconstructions that would allow anyone to make such a claim..  if you look at the greenland ice cores, you see temperature increases that exceed anything we have seen several times in 150 years in the past 10,000 years.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 15, 2016)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



No he did not prove that a colder body warms up a warmer one. The colder body is not a heat source, the heat source was the heat-lamp. Nobody has any problems with the idea that heat radiation can be impeded by an object that is warmer than the background. Spencer was trying to show that the 2nd body is a heat source. That is an entirely different principle. The only way he could possibly prove his claim is to eliminate the heat lamp and conduct an experiment that clearly shows that there is a transfer of heat from the cooler object to the warmer one. Such as by placing 2 objects of different temperature in a Dewar flask and observing the temperature changes. If the cooler of the 2 can make the warmer one even warmer then the cooler one should cool off in the process...and we all know it won`t do that


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



You mean like 4.3 billion years or so?  Would that be a better corollary to the present?


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



That Greenland Ice Core data is too noisy for my liking.  I discount it.  Come up with something better.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Of course not...clearly you haven't looked very deeply into this...and as a result, are operating entirely from an emotional/political position.

Here, have a look at the temperature history of planet earth...


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



Like it or not, the greenland ice core is the gold standard for the northern hemisphere as the vostok ice core is the gold standard for the southern hemisphere...both show very similar temperature spikes over the past 10K years.


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I think 800000 years is adequate.  You're just trying to confuse the issue.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



800,000 years doesn't even get back far enough to exit the ice age that the earth is presently in...note that when the earth started its decent into the ice age that is still going on, atmospheric CO2 was far higher than it is at present....

I understand that you would rather not look at the very big picture because the larger the time span you look at, the less frightening the present temperature becomes...


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> There are no proxy reconstructions that would allow anyone to make such a claim..



It looks like they constructed a couple of graphs based on numerous proxies.  Did you read the article?


----------



## mamooth (Dec 15, 2016)

westwall said:


> I notice that you all rely on "simple" models.  Get back to me when you have a model at least as complex as what they use to model aero pieces for an F1 race car.  THEIR models actually model reality.  Unlike yours.



The climate models are very close to reality, though they've underestimated the warming a bit. Current temperatures are a bit warmer than the models predicted.

This is how the comparison really looks, as compared to Christy's fudge job.

moyhu: Current global temps compared with CMIP 5


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I understand you would rather look at a larger time scale because it gives you a way to run away from the current issue.  So no, we're not going to play like  AGW is a myth because lookie, it was even warmer than this in the Jurassic.  Ok?  That would be just stupid.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > There are no proxy reconstructions that would allow anyone to make such a claim..
> ...



The ice cores are still the gold standard...like it or not.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Sorry hairball...fooling yourself with instrumentation again...but I am sure that you believe your own story.



You can blubber and cry all you want, but longwave IR cameras without cooling still exist, and work great. That simple facts proves your kook cult theory is laughable dogshit.

Now, we know you're lying. You know you're lying. Everyone knows it. However, your kook pseudscience cults commands you to lie, so you're going to keep lying. Yep, it really is that simple. You're proudly lying for the glory of your cult, and you don't care if everyone knows, because the only opinions you care about are the opinions of your fellow cultists, and they laud you for lying.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> I understand you would rather look at a larger time scale because it gives you a way to run away from the current issue.  So no, we're not going to play like  AGW is a myth because lookie, it was even warmer than this in the Jurassic.  Ok?  That would be just stupid.



There is no current issue...the temperatures we are seeing, and the rate of change is not even close to approaching the boundaries of natural variability...if you are going to claim that something different is happening now, the you need something to be happening that is not natural, then you need to have something happening that is outside the bounds of natural variability..

And you don't need to go back to the jurassic to find temperatures warmer than the present...in fact, most of earth's history has been far warmer than the present..and the cold climate we live in now is due to the fact that the earth is still in an ice age...on planet earth, ice at one, or both of the poles is the anomaly...not the norm.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> You can blubber and cry all you want, but longwave IR cameras without cooling still exist, and work great. That simple facts proves your kook cult theory is laughable dogshit.



learn something about the instruments you are describing..the cameras that aren't cooled are pieces of shit and operate based on mathematical models....not actual measurement of incoming IR...


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Fool's gold, maybe.  Maybe representative of what happened in a 4 inch hole in the ice sheet someplace in Greenland, but not the entire Earth.


----------



## mamooth (Dec 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> learn something about the instruments you are describing..the cameras that aren't cooled are pieces of shit and operate based on mathematical models....not actual measurement of incoming IR...



Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, ...

So, let's get this straight.

I point such a camera at the sky. It clearly shows the very cold sky and very cold clouds being of different temperature, and that image matches up with the visible cloud patterns I can see with my eye.

How does a "mathematical model" accomplish such a feat? Be precise. We could all use the laugh.


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> if you are going to claim that something different is happening now, the you need something to be happening that is not natural, then you need to have something happening that is outside the bounds of natural variability..



Ok.  We've exceeded 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere in a very short amount of time in response to rapid burning of fossil fuels.  Unequivocally unnatural.

And the average global temperature is warming at 10x the rate previously seen in corresponding inter-glacial periods.   Very probably unnatural.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> there are no particular refrigerator laws of physics...the 2nd law of thermodynamics preludes a perfect refrigerator...you really don't have a clue.


You got that law from a refrigerator site and misinterpreted it. The entropy definition has no constraints on thermal radiation, and you know that.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 15, 2016)

SSDD said:


> The ice cores are still the gold standard...like it or not.


Interpretation of the ice cores involves mathematical models. You eschew mathematical models. Now do you believe them selectively or what?


----------



## IanC (Dec 15, 2016)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...




Spencer's experiments show the disturbance in temperature gradients by placing intermediate objects between the source of heat and the exit of that heat into the environment. Heat loss is slowed by decreasing the temperature difference between the heat source and the intermediary compared to the environment which is assumed to be able to absorb energy without changing temperature. Energy is captured, the temperature of both the source and intermediary increase until the loss to the environment equals the amount without the intermediary. In the above experiment he did not measure the intermediary, he just changed one environment for a warmer one. The difference is moot. The effect on the heated warm source is measurable, the reasons obvious.

In an experiment where both the heated source and indirectly heated cooler object were to be measured, then the second cooler object would become a heat source because it would contain stored energy received from the warm object. If you placed yet another object between the heat source and the environment, it too would warm up, using stored energy that would have escaped to the environment. If the heat source is terminated then all the stored heat would be released. The total amount of energy put into the environment is exactly equal with or without intermediaries.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


Not surprised that you would reject anything that doesn't support your alarmist view...  

The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years | Die kalte Sonne



> Although the GISP2 ice core data is site specific (Greenland), it has been well correlated with global glacial fluctuations and a wide range of other climate proxies and has become the ‘gold standard’ among global climate reconstructions. However, keep in mind that temperature variations are latitude specific so actual temperatures from the GISP2 cores show a higher range of values than global data.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 15, 2016)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


You say:
"In an experiment where both the heated source and indirectly heated cooler object were to be measured, then the second cooler object would become a heat source because it would contain stored energy received from the warm object."
To which I answer:
Yes of course the second cooler object would contain stored energy received from the warm object and would in turn become a heat source but not an additional heat source for the first, the warmer on. Only to yet another one a 3rd one which is cooler than the second object.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 15, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > if you are going to claim that something different is happening now, the you need something to be happening that is not natural, then you need to have something happening that is outside the bounds of natural variability..
> ...



Again...there is no proxy reconstruction upon which you can make such a claim...we know for sure that CO2 has been orders of magnitude higher than present even at the time that ice ages began....



Cosmos said:


> And the average global temperature is warming at 10x the rate previously seen in corresponding inter-glacial periods.   Very probably unnatural.



Again...pure bullshit...there is no proxy record that has the sort of resolution that would support such claims....making shit up hardly amounts to evidence of anything other than the fact that warmers are perfectly willing to lie in an effort to make a point.


----------



## ding (Dec 15, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


Good Lord, how stupid are you?  They had two data points for each of the last four interglacial periods.  They have no idea what the slopes during those thousands of years.   I guess you must have realized that our present temperature is well below the peak temperatures of three of the last four interglacials.


----------



## ding (Dec 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I notice that you all rely on "simple" models.  Get back to me when you have a model at least as complex as what they use to model aero pieces for an F1 race car.  THEIR models actually model reality.  Unlike yours.
> ...


Looks like you finally found the present AGT, lol.  Good for you.  Stop worrying over nothing.  We are in an interglacial cycle.  You do know what that is, right?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2016)

ding said:


> Looks like you finally found the present AGT, lol.  Good for you.  Stop worrying over nothing.  We are in an interglacial cycle.  You do know what that is, right?



They aren't worried about the climate...they are worried about a political agenda...which now appears to be going down in flames after their decades of hard work generating reams of propaganda and panic.


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 16, 2016)

ding said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



So you post this paleo-climatology chart on here which is cited by the NASA Earth Observatory project.  You believe the temperatures and the rate of change of temperature for the last 4 inter-glacial periods going back 400000 years but for some reason you don't believe the data from the latest one which their analysis indicates has a rate of temperature change 10 times greater than the others.  So what makes you disbelieve the most recent data but believe the rest of it?


----------



## IanC (Dec 16, 2016)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...




Good! It seems as if we are converging on what we agree upon.

You agree that a cool intermediary object that shadows the warm heated object from the cold environment will increase the temperature of the heated object by lowered heat loss due to a smaller temperature differential. You also seem to agree that the intermediary object absorbs and stores energy so that it becomes a heat source to objects cooler than itself. And that extra objects placed between the heated source and the cold environment would also react in the same way, absorbing and storing energy, decreasing heat loss uphill and becoming a heat source downhill.

The Sun-Earth-Atmosphere-Space flow of energy is complicated by many things but there is still a radiation component to it, and only radiation finally escapes. Solar insulation warms the surface, which warms the lower atmosphere, which warms the next layer, etc until the same amount of energy leaves as entered albeit at lower energy wavelengths. While the surface has an emissivity of over 0.9 in the wavelengths we are interested in, the atmosphere has an emissivity that is much lower and is concentrated in certain spikes that typically correlate to GHGs. Some wavelengths escape freely, some are blocked almost completely at near surface heights. It is also important to remember that the atmosphere is only there because of stored solar insolation that gives it the kinetic and potential energy to remain aloft. The atmosphere radiates energy in all directions but heat (net energy transfer) only goes from warmer to cooler.

Polar Bear - Do you agree with SSDD that atmospheric radiation is controlled by surface temperature, at least when it is emitted in the direction of the surface? You seem to object to many posters here that make plausible statements on physics but you are strangely silent on SSDD's bizarre claims.


----------



## IanC (Dec 16, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...




Cosmos - have you looked at those numerous proxies? I have. They are wildly divergent from each other, often contradicting each other in direction, magnitude and timing. Ice cores are one of the few types of proxies that are consistent with each other, and usually with the overall general conclusion of the multiproxy reconstructions. Ice cores are the best type of proxy, giving the best resolution. unfortunately they are only found in a  useful form in very cold areas of the globe.


----------



## ding (Dec 16, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


You are an idiot.  The temperature data for the glacial-interglacial cycles comes from the oxygen isotope curve which is well established for the Cenozoic.  That doesn't mean they have the same number of datapoints available that we do for calculating the rate of change over the last 50 years that we have today.  They literally used two points to calculate slopes for periods which ranged from 5,000 to 12,000 years.  They have no idea what happened between those two points.  Besides, your point is meaningless anyway.  The only thing that matters from this data is that we are still well below the peak values of the previous interglacial cycles.  A point that you and every other denier of science refuse to acknowledge.


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 16, 2016)

You are an idiot.  It doesn't matter what happened in those intervening 7000 years.  It only matters where you set the endpoints.  And you're still too inept to explain how to account for a 10x difference in slope.  20% or 30% maybe.  Not a 10x difference.


----------



## ding (Dec 16, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> You are an idiot.  It doesn't matter what happened in those intervening 7000 years.  It only matters where you set the endpoints.  And you're still too inept to explain how to account for a 10x difference in slope.  20% or 30% maybe.  Not a 10x difference.


No.  Temps could have gone up or down during these 5000 to 12000 year periods.  In fact we do see evidence of this in the saw tooth behavior which is a sign of slp stick behavior common in almost all chaotic events.  The slopes could have been anything in between.  No one has any idea what happened between the two points because no one has the data to analyze what happened between the two points.  In fact, one would have expected them to behave exactly as we see today.  At what point are you going to acknowledge that the data clearly shows that our present temperatures are at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperatures of three of the last four interglacials?


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 16, 2016)

ding said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > You are an idiot.  It doesn't matter what happened in those intervening 7000 years.  It only matters where you set the endpoints.  And you're still too inept to explain how to account for a 10x difference in slope.  20% or 30% maybe.  Not a 10x difference.
> ...



I acknowledged that from the very beginning when you agreed that reaching temperatures above that level would be evidence for AGW.  Now we have this data showing temperature increasing at 10 times the rate of previous interglacial periods.  When are you going to acknowledge that unexplained anomaly?  A 10 times difference in slope is pretty significant.


----------



## ding (Dec 16, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


No, that was not you acknowledging that.  That was you dismissing the fact that we are still within the normal range of temperature increases during an interglacial cycle.  

I have explained the anomaly.  The data does not exist to make a comparison.  We have no idea of how the slope changed over a 12,000 year period or how many times it changed.  We can be damn certain it was not constant.


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 16, 2016)

ding said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Uh, no.  You have not explained the 10x anomaly.  You've persistently dodged even acknowledging it.  Let's just suppose it's due to a natural process.  What natural process has happened in the last 200 years that would account for a 10x increase in the rate of change of AGT?


----------



## ding (Dec 16, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


There is no anomaly because you can't calculate the slope during the discrete periods within a 12,000 year period because the data does not exist to do so.  You are swinging at windmills because the scientific data does not agree with your alarmist mentality.


----------



## ding (Dec 16, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


You nutjobs are so single mindedly focused on CO2 that you ignore the bigger picture.  I can point out a half of dozen instances in the geologic record where your religious dogma has been proven to be false.  CO2 does not drive climate change which is why the predictions of your high priest continue to fail to materialize.  Yes, CO2 has a greenhouse gas effect but the logarithmic relationship means that it's impact diminishes as CO2 levels increase.  The ridiculous feedbacks they have manufactured to instill hysteria in people like yourself do not exist.


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 16, 2016)

ding said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




Seriously?  Was this too difficult for you?

_Uh, no. You have not explained the 10x anomaly. You've persistently dodged even acknowledging it. Let's just suppose it's due to a natural process. What natural process has happened in the last 200 years that would account for a 10x increase in the rate of change of AGT?
_
I've been trying to keep an open mind on this question for years, so that makes me a nutjob?


----------



## ding (Dec 16, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


No.  You are nutjob for your single minded focus on CO2 and failure to see the big picture.  You are a nut job because you look at this data and ignore the significance of it and instead focus on a comparison that cannot be made because insufficient data exists to do so and are unable to comprehend why it can't be made even though it has been explained to you in detail.


----------



## ding (Dec 16, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


Can you tell me why it took 12 million years for the temperature to fall to the predicted temperature from radiative forcing of CO2 when CO2 fell from 3500 ppm to 600 ppm?

Take a look at how long it took for the temperature to change after the massive CO2 fall at the Azolla event. Based on the radiative forcing relationship between CO2 and tmeperature, the temperature should have immediately fallen by:

C= 5.35 * ln(3500/600) * 0.75 = 7.08 C

Looking at the oxygen isotope curve - which is well established and widely accepted for the Cenozoic - we don't see that level of temperature decrease until 12 million years later. The oxygen isotope curve is roughly 3 C per grid line.


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 16, 2016)

ding said:


> No. You are nutjob for your single minded focus on CO2 and failure to see the big picture.



Did I even mention CO2 here?  No, I think I only became a nutjob when I asked a simple question you have no answer for concerning a chart that you posted, btw.


----------



## ding (Dec 16, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > No. You are nutjob for your single minded focus on CO2 and failure to see the big picture.
> ...


Riiiiight... so you don't believe in AGW?


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 16, 2016)

ding said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



I just want the right answer, numbnuts.  And you don't have it.  You're squirming around over charts from 12 million years ago because you have no answers for what's happened in the last 200.  You may be correct that we're near the end of an inter-glacial warmup period, but this will be the first one in history that's warming up 10 times faster than the previous ones.  I'd like an answer for what's causing that.  So far, CO2 is the leading candidate among the scientific community.  You can't seem to offer any other explanation.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



You keep  claiming that the degree of warming that we have seen in the past 200 years is 10X the rate of previous warming periods...In order to credibly make such a claim, you need to actually know what the rate of increase was for all the warming periods prior to the one that began 200 years ago...can you provide the proxy study, or studies that allows you to make such a claim?  What proxy study or studies exist that have a resolution of 200 years..other than ice cores which certainly don't show the present warming to be any more rapid than previous warming periods.


----------



## ding (Dec 16, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


I have offered you the answer, dumbass, we are in an interglacial cycle.


----------



## IanC (Dec 16, 2016)

much of the problem with using multiproxy reconstructions is that they keep adding modern instrumental data to the end. comparing similar proxies is reasonably valid as long as the selection process is not an exercise in cherrypicking. comparing low sensitivity, low precision proxies to high sensitivity, high precision modern instrumental data is not valid.

remember, 'hide the decline' was about the effort to remove the inconvenient data present in the proxy data and replace it with instrumental data. conclusions made from only proxy data would have been dramatically different.


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 16, 2016)

ding said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



But you haven't offered an explanation as to why this interglacial cycle is warming up 10 times faster than the previous 4, dumbass.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



You keep claiming that the degree of warming that we have seen in the past 200 years is 10X the rate of previous warming periods...In order to credibly make such a claim, you need to actually know what the rate of increase was for all the warming periods prior to the one that began 200 years ago...can you provide the proxy study, or studies that allows you to make such a claim? What proxy study or studies exist that have a resolution of 200 years..other than ice cores which certainly don't show the present warming to be any more rapid than previous warming periods.

Can you actually point to, or bring a proxy study here that supports the claim, or is the claim just something you pulled out of your ass or heard from some other warmer?


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Moron.  I've linked to it and referred to it numerous times on this thread. 

Global Warming : Feature Articles
_
"Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the *current climatic warming is occurring much more rapidly than past warming events.*

 As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years.* In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming"*_


----------



## ding (Dec 16, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


It's not.  Show me the data that says it is.  Not an opinion.  The data.


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 16, 2016)

ding said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Show me the data that says it's not.  I got this information from the very study you posted on here.  You should already know what I'm talking about.  Like I said before, why do you believe the first 800000 years of the data but discount the part that actually matters to our lives?


----------



## ding (Dec 16, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


I have already provided the data, moron. There's only two data points. That's the point.  No one knows what happened between the two data points. You are clearly not intelligent enough to  understand what I am saying.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...



I asked for a proxy reconstruction that had the resolution to support claims based on 200 year time periods...not someone's opinion...I don't see anything there that states what the rate of temperature rise was in previous warm periods..  I went to the paper that the article you posted was derived from and they make no claims as to the rates of warming over spans of time as short as 200 years.....

so again, do you have a proxy study which would allow you to make claims regarding rates of temperature change in a short span of time such as 200 years.....we know that the temperature has increased a bit over a degree over the past couple of hundred years..neither your site, or the paper it was derived from makes any claim of resolution sufficient to claim that in the past, the temperature rise was always less than 0.75 degrees per century...and what do you suppose the margin of error would be?


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> Show me the data that says it's not.  I got this information from the very study you posted on here.  You should already know what I'm talking about.  Like I said before, why do you believe the first 800000 years of the data but discount the part that actually matters to our lives?



sorry guy...you are the one making the claim that it is...therefore the onus is upon you to provide the data showing that it is..what sort of study do you think exists that could even begin to detect a 0.75 degree per century increase in temperature which would be 1/10 of the rate we have seen over the past 200 years?  Hell, even the thermometer record can't claim that sort of accuracy with any credibility.


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 16, 2016)

ding said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



I understand exactly what you're saying and you're too stupid to understand why it's irrelevant, moron.


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Everything I've said on this thread is based on a chart that Dingaling posted.  If it was good enough for Dingaling it's good enough for you.


----------



## Pumpkin Row (Dec 16, 2016)

_I imagine if there was actual science behind it, they wouldn't keep falsifying data._


----------



## ding (Dec 16, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


My explanation is not irrelevant.  It is the comparison you are trying to make that is irrelevant.


----------



## ding (Dec 16, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


Wrong. That is just one tiny piece of the picture.  Here are three posts which extensively paints the entire picture, Einstein.  

Watching La Nina update thread

Watching La Nina update thread

Watching La Nina update thread


----------



## polarbear (Dec 16, 2016)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


You know or should know that it is not my intention to attack you and for the most part I agree with much of what you have been posting over several years.
It`s not just now that we have converging views as you put it.
If I don`t agree with some of what you say does not mean that I dismiss the rest of what you have been posting...which for the most part is correct.
However there can be no progress in R&/or RD unless there are debates where the views are diverging. In this particular case it`s down to what Spencer considers as a heat source.
There is no need to get into GHG`s and all the rest of it to troubleshoot Spencer`s experiment.
Yes a cooler object can affect the cooling of a warmer object if it shades it from an even colder background into which the warmer object radiates heat. But as I keep saying that does not make the colder object a heat source for the warmer object...no more than plug that stops a tire leak is a source of compressed air to inflate it to a higher pressure. For that you do need a compressor, in Spencer`s experiment he needs the heat lamp and for the earth you need the sun + the GHGs to increase the temperature. The GHGs alone will not increase the temperature and in Spencer`s example you also need more than just another body. Without the heat lamp there is no temperature increase. The only effect that 2nd cooler object has is to impede cooling but that does not make it a heat source as Spencer keeps saying ( for many years ever since he is blogging)
The insulation in your house walls are not a heat source, nor is the lid on a pot of boiling water..well I`m sure you get the point.
As far as the rest of AGW is concerned I am a critic when it comes to the magnitude and the accuracy of it all. Since we are dealing with only a fraction of a degree EVERYTHING hinges on accuracy and methodology and both are woefully inadequate...as you also pointed out many times.
Okay now about SSDD..
You said that he said:"that atmospheric radiation is controlled by surface temperature, at least when it is emitted in the direction of the surface"
The way I would put that is:
Surface radiation is a function of surface temperature. Surface radiation is partially absorbed by the atmosphere and absorbed radiation is re-emitted in all directions....that was all well established long before M.Mann & Al Gore or the IPCC came along.
We also knew for over a century that anything which shields a warm object from a cold background into which it would otherwise radiate heat impedes the cooling of the warm object.
But now it all comes down to the magnitudes of all the effects that must be considered.
By far the largest near the surface and lower altitudes is convection, evaporation, lapse rate, cloud cover and way way down CO2.
And you know where I stand concerning the latter. Not with estimates, models or what this so called "scientific consensus" claims it is...most of them have no clue how to properly measure the difference of absorption between a gas mixture of 300 ppm CO2 and 400ppm of real air that also exhibits various moisture content and exists in a wide variety of different barometric pressure regions.
So what do they do?
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
where it is stated that:
Data are reported as a dry air mole fraction defined as the number of molecules of carbon dioxide divided by the number of all molecules in air, including CO2 itself, after water vapor has been removed. The mole fraction is expressed as parts per million (ppm).

And from that they "compute" a global average...from which they again "compute" a global average temperature anomaly in the order of minute fractions of a degree K or C which are just fractional % when we express it in Kelvin as it should be...as all the equations that are used do.
I don`t even have to get into barometric pressure variations over huge regions . It suffices to point out  that a 10% moisture variation alone will result in changes that dwarf the changes in deg K anomalies:
Air pollutant concentrations - Wikipedia




where:   
C    = Concentration of the air pollutant in the emitted gas
w    = fraction of the emitted exhaust gas, by volume, which is water vapor
As an example, a wet basis concentration of* 40 ppmv* in a gas having 10 volume percent water vapor would have a: Cdry basis = 40 ÷ ( 1 - 0.10 ) = *44.4 ppmv. *
And last not least there is what the bureaucrats at the IPCC are plugging in for CO2 doubling as absorption rates and for computing the net effect in watts/m^2.
It`s a complete joke !!!
Dr.Heinz Hug and everybody else who is not a part of that propaganda machine have it right
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact




We integrated from a value _E_ = 3 (above which absorption deems negligible, related to the way through the whole troposphere) until the ends (_E_ = 0) of the R- and P-branch. So the edges are fully considered. They start at 14.00 µm for the P-branch and at 15.80 µm for the R-branch, going down to the base line _E_=0.  IPCC starts with 13.7 and 16 µm *[13]*
Crucial is the *relative increment of greenhouse effect *. This is equal to the difference between the sum of slope integrals for 714 and 357 ppm, related to the total integral for 357 ppm. Considering the n3 band alone (as IPCC does) we get 0.17 %
The *radiative forcing for doubling* can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m2 *[14]* over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n3 band as observed from satellite measurements *(Hanel et al., 1971)* and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m2 - and not 4.3 W/m2.
*This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.*
......
And you say ?


----------



## xyz (Dec 16, 2016)

Trump has the most scietifintic expoits:


The Earth is only 5,500 years old, how the heck could it have global warming??!!


----------



## Cosmos (Dec 16, 2016)

ding said:


> Cosmos said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...



Sure.  You mean the rate of temperature increase that no natural process can account for is irrelevant.


----------



## ding (Dec 16, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


My goodness, ok.  Here you go.  Here is the natural process you so desperately seek.

The world we live in today is an icehouse world. It is characterized by bipolar glaciation.








We think of this as normal, but it's not. For most of the past 55 million years our planet was a greenhouse world.







Bipolar glaciation is geologically rare, possibly unique. No other previous instance of bipolar glaciation has been recorded in the geologic record.







The icehouse world we live in today is characterized by glacial - interglacial cycles and a high latitudinal thermal gradient.The modern icehouse world we live in today differed strongly from the greenhouse world in that the greenhouse world did not have bipolar glaciation and had a low latitude thermal gradient.






The start of the transition from the greenhouse world to an icehouse world began 55 million years ago, but it wasn't until the last 3 million years that we actually transitioned to an icehouse world.

The oxygen isotope curve is well established for the Cenozoic and shows that the trend is for a COOLING earth. This curve shows the temperature of the earth over its 4.5 billion year life.







This curve shows the cooling trend over the last 55 million years. Note the glaciation markers on the graph. About 5 million years ago the earth started to rapidly cool as evidenced by the saw tooth behavior of the oxygen isotope curve which is a proxy for temperature.







Climate models predict that extensive glaciation cannot occur at the South Pole until atmospheric CO2 reaches 750 ppm. Climate models predict that extensive glaciation cannot occur at the North Pole until atmospheric CO2 reaches 250 ppm. Thresholds for Cenozoic bipolar glaciation







It was plate tectonics which set the stage for bipolar glaciation and the icehouse world we live in today. The north pole was isolated by warm marine currents by landmasses. The south pole was isolated from warm marine currents because Antarctica is centered over the pole. When the poles become isolated from warm marine currents the threshold is lowered for glaciation at the poles. The south pole has a lower threshold for glaciation than the north pole because a continent is parked over the south pole while the north pole is somewhat less isolated because other land masses are interfering with the circulation of the warm marine currents of the ocean rather than a landmass being parked over the pole.








Five million years ago the earth began to rapidly cool. The glacial-interglacial cycles of the past 3 million years were triggered by Milankovitch cycles. Before the glacial-interglacial cycles could be triggered, two conditions needed to be met; the north and south poles had to be isolated from warm marine currents and atmospheric CO2 needed to be 400 ppm or less. These conditions still exist today.


----------



## ding (Dec 16, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


But wait... there's more, dumbass.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

We hear a lot about how temperatures have begun to spike over the last 200 years, and they have too. In fact if one were to only look at the temperature data (from NASA) of the last 2000 years, they would naturally conclude that something was wrong. Here we see a declining temperature for 1800 years and then an abrupt uptick approximately 200 years ago. Pretty alarming, right?







Not really. It is all part of a natural cycle that has been occurring for the past 3 million years. This is the temperature data for the last 800,000 years (also from NASA). The peaks are the interglacial cycles and the troughs are the glacial cycles. From this data we can see two very important things. 1. that our current temperature is still 2C below the peaks of three of the last four interglacial temperature peaks and 2. that the temperature data for the past 2,000 years - where there is a declining temperature following by a sharp reversal - is seen in every interglacial cycle. It has the shape of a saw tooth. So our current temperature is within the normal range of an interglacial cycle, and the spike of the last 200 years which was preceded by an 1800 year decline is a normal saw tooth behavior that is seen in every interglacial cycle.







Some dumbasses like yourself make a big deal out of the rate at which temperature is rising relative to the rate it rose during the previous interglacial cycles.  My answer to that is that it is not possible to make that comparison because we have many data points for the last 50 years but very few for the previous interglacial cycles.  For the red line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 6,957 years from 438,261 years ago to 431,304 years ago where the temperature rose by 8.3C.  Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 6,957 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist.  There were only 2 data points for this time period.  But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 438,261 years ago to 431,304 just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.  For the blue line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 7,950 years from 342,857 years ago to 334,907 years ago where the temperature rose by 12.4C.  Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 7,950 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if that slope was the same as today because the data does not exist.  There were only two data points for this time period.  But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 342,857 years ago to 334,907 just had to be constant at 0.002 C/yr.   For the orange line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 5,963 years from 252,422 years ago to 246,460  years ago where the temperature rose by 7.7C.  Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 5,963 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist.  There were only two data points for this time period.  But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 252,422 years ago to 246,460 years ago just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.  For the black line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 11,925 years from 143,106 years ago to 131,180  years ago where the temperature rose by 7.7C.  Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 11,925 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist.  There were only two data points for this time period.  But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 143,106 years ago to 131,180 years ago just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.  For the yellow line below there are exactly two data points from the oxygen isotope curve which covers a time period of 5,963 years from 18,876 years ago to 13,913 years ago where the temperature rose by 8.1C.  Dumbasses like yourself don't seem to be able to comprehend that during those 5,963 years the slope of the temperature could have changed many times and that no one can tell you if during that time that there was ever a period of time where the slope was the same as today because the data does not exist.  There were only two data points for this time period.  But simpleton idiots like yourself will continue to argue that the slope from 18,876 years ago to 13,913 years ago just had to be constant at 0.001 C/yr.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> Everything I've said on this thread is based on a chart that Dingaling posted.  If it was good enough for Dingaling it's good enough for you.



the chart is fine...the claim that it has a resolution of 0.75 degrees per century is bullshit...d


----------



## SSDD (Dec 16, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> Sure.  You mean the rate of temperature increase that no natural process can account for is irrelevant.



You have no evidence that the rate of increase we have seen over the past 200 years is anything but natural...the opinion of someone with no actual evidence to back it up is just an opinion...if you have evidence of a proxy reconstruction that can boast resolution of 0.75 degrees per century, by all means, lets see it...what you posted, however is not that...it is an opinion with no actual evidence to back it up.


----------



## ding (Dec 16, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Cosmos said:
> ...


You have constructed a logical fallacy argument to justify your disregarding  of data which shows that we perfectly within the norm of the previous four interglacials.


----------



## IanC (Dec 16, 2016)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...




I agree that we hold similar views on many of the climate science topics.

I have an almost irrational hatred of Michael Mann. Beyond the level of distain I have for other scientists that have made even worse manipulations. I would be hard pressed to give him the benefit of the doubt on anything he says, although I would defend his right to speak.

You seem to have a similar problem with Spencer. You purposely misunderstand his words and refuse to make an effort to readjust your thinking. It's too bad, really.

As far as SSDD goes, you have ignored the question. He says that surface conditions control the creation of radiation from the atmosphere. eg. No radiation is possible from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface. Period. Not one photon. Ever.


----------



## polarbear (Dec 16, 2016)

IanC said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Naah I don`t have that kind of a problem with Spencer just with his experiment.
Also I like this forum to discuss physics but I don`t like a discussion to escalate into an argument.
Over the years I noticed that you make a lot of effort to do the same so that`s why I singled you out most of the time.
Of course a cooler object also emits radiation as long as it is above 0 K but again that does not qualify it as a heat source for a warmer object. If it were then it should be able to increase the temperature of the warmer object without the need of a 3.rd heat radiating object.
I am beginning to think that the definition of the term "heat source" in my native language which is German may be somewhat different as it might be understood by those whose native language is English. So let me try this on you..the people who discovered and published the physics involved with this bone of contention use the German term "Energie Quelle".
The exact meaning of quelle can only be translated into the Englsh word "source" for lack of a more nuanced and more exact meaning of "quelle" which in this case would mean ORIGIN.
In other words the object from which the additional energy in a given system originated from.
If all you got is "source" as a word for that system in English then you are stuck considering anything that radiates as an energy source.
In Spencer`s experiment the additional observed energy comes from the heat lamp and not from the cooler object. That does not mean that there is no feed-back but in any feed-back loop you still need an energy *source* to pump it. Else the loop`s internal energy decays or in this case cools off.
There are other areas in physics where they don`t even try to translate a term like for ex. "Schlieren Effekt" because there are no suitable English words and vice versa there is no suitable German word for "sonic boom"


----------



## IanC (Dec 17, 2016)

polarbear said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > polarbear said:
> ...




I agree that the imprecision of words causes a lot of misunderstandings.

Spencer has repeatedly stated that the temperature of an object is a function of 'energy in minus energy out'. His numerous experiments, both real and imaginary, deal with the second half of that simple equation. If you reduce the energy out it will cause the temperature to rise just as if you raised the energy in.

Although you agree that putting an object between the warm source and the cold environment decreases the heat loss, you complain that that object cannot be the origin of heat. Both Spencer and I agree. But the warm source DOES get warmer. 

I can identify where the extra energy comes from that makes the original object warmer. It is the energy stored in the system that would have escaped to the environment if the intermediary object did not 'shadow' the environment.


----------

