Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No. I remember the poll well. It showed that the more you know about climate science, the more you understand AGW is real.It's not.
Although it's used in science for such things as the germ theory of disease, evolutionary theory, etc.
But you guys are trying to do science on a message board, with seemingly no realization that science is done in journals and at conferences.
It is? Please show me.
Im not sure I should bother.
I mean, if I show you a parade of the most respected scientists in the world telling you something that is against your religion, you'll dismiss it outright.
But I guess I can try. Again.
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus
I notice you don't really pick up on things too easily. That list of "consensus" organizations INCLUDES the AMS..Given what you were recently shown about the actual LACK of consensus on anything truly important to the planet within the AMS -- how much do you think I or reasonable folks should value that govt propaganda as "consensus"??
This is what the AMS says:
"There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. This scientific finding is based on a large and persuasive body of research. The observed warming will be irreversible for many years into the future, and even larger temperature increases will occur as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. The ongoing warming will increase risks and stresses to human societies, economies, ecosystems, and wildlife through the 21st century and beyond, making it imperative that society respond to a changing climate. To inform decisions on adaptation and mitigation, it is critical that we improve our understanding of the global climate system and our ability to project future climate through continued and improved monitoring and research. This is especially true for smaller (seasonal and regional) scales and weather and climate extremes, and for important hydroclimatic variables such as precipitation and water availability."
2012 AMS Information Statement on Climate Change
So... Delusional? Or liar?
You've already forgotten what the POLL of AMS said --- as opposed to this political front office statement says.
Poll show MUCH uncertainty among AMS members and no general consensus on the DETAILS of the GW theory.
Preliminary August 2015 temperature anomaly from NASA-GISS is +0.86C. That's the hottest August in the record, beating the old record of +0.81C from 2014. The official release doesn't come until Thursday 9/17/2015.
No. I remember the poll well. It showed that the more you know about climate science, the more you understand AGW is real.
The more you are a TV weatherman with little scientific background, the less you see it as a problem.
I think your heroic championing of the ignorant is getting a little old.
Preliminary August 2015 temperature anomaly from NASA-GISS is +0.86C. That's the hottest August in the record, beating the old record of +0.81C from 2014. The official release doesn't come until Thursday 9/17/2015.
You warmer wackos just gobble up whatever pap you are fed and regurgitate it all over. You are all so careless about what you consume that it is a miracle that you all aren't dead from food poisoning. Here is the cartoon that they use to "say" that august was the hottest evah...
Here is the actual data that they don't bother to show you...it demonstrates how much infilling was necessary to provide you with that cartoon that you so love to bandy about.
And when they went about infilling all that land area...did they use other sources of data to check for accuracy? Of course not. The satellite picture shows an entirely different picture for August with Much of Australia and Africa being cold as well as much of Russia and Asia.
Particularly notice that cold spot in the South Pacific that the Sat picture shows that is a bold hot spot in the surface adjustments. Climate science has become a giant joke...I hope that those wackos get their wish and have a RICO case pressed in court....the climate science community will be torn to shreds with just this sort of data that demonstrates the degree to which they are manipulating data....mann's joke of a case will be nothing more than an inconsequential footnote to the fall of mainstream climate pseudoscience.
No. I remember the poll well. It showed that the more you know about climate science, the more you understand AGW is real.
The more you are a TV weatherman with little scientific background, the less you see it as a problem.
I think your heroic championing of the ignorant is getting a little old.
Guess you never looked at the curricula for meteorologists vs climate scientists. Meteorology is a hard science requiring much more education in the maths and physics than climate science which is a soft science. "characteristics of hard science include producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method"
Climate science abandoned the scientific method quite some time ago in favor of cherry picking and manipulating data to achieve a preconceived, predetermined outcome.
Yap-yap from a proven fool. Smart photons, remember?No. I remember the poll well. It showed that the more you know about climate science, the more you understand AGW is real.
The more you are a TV weatherman with little scientific background, the less you see it as a problem.
I think your heroic championing of the ignorant is getting a little old.
Guess you never looked at the curricula for meteorologists vs climate scientists. Meteorology is a hard science requiring much more education in the maths and physics than climate science which is a soft science. "characteristics of hard science include producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method"
Climate science abandoned the scientific method quite some time ago in favor of cherry picking and manipulating data to achieve a preconceived, predetermined outcome.
LOL. Yeah, sure. 'soft science'.
Read some Nature Climate Change sometime.
Yap-yap from a proven fool. Smart photons, remember?
looking at those graphs, got to keep crayola in business you know.Preliminary August 2015 temperature anomaly from NASA-GISS is +0.86C. That's the hottest August in the record, beating the old record of +0.81C from 2014. The official release doesn't come until Thursday 9/17/2015.
You warmer wackos just gobble up whatever pap you are fed and regurgitate it all over. You are all so careless about what you consume that it is a miracle that you all aren't dead from food poisoning. Here is the cartoon that they use to "say" that august was the hottest evah...
Here is the actual data that they don't bother to show you...it demonstrates how much infilling was necessary to provide you with that cartoon that you so love to bandy about.
And when they went about infilling all that land area...did they use other sources of data to check for accuracy? Of course not. The satellite picture shows an entirely different picture for August with Much of Australia and Africa being cold as well as much of Russia and Asia.
Particularly notice that cold spot in the South Pacific that the Sat picture shows that is a bold hot spot in the surface adjustments. Climate science has become a giant joke...I hope that those wackos get their wish and have a RICO case pressed in court....the climate science community will be torn to shreds with just this sort of data that demonstrates the degree to which they are manipulating data....mann's joke of a case will be nothing more than an inconsequential footnote to the fall of mainstream climate pseudoscience.
Yap-yap from a proven fool. Smart photons, remember?
Nothing smart about obeying the laws of nature...photons that don't move towards warmer objects are no more smart than rocks that fall down rather than up....just following the rules. To bad you believe there must be some sort of intelligence...or maybe magic involved.
Not that it matters much insofar as the myth of CO2 warming goes.
Tell me rocks do you have any idea what the mean time between molecular collisions through which a CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom (usually N2) is in the open atmosphere?
Now can you tell me what the mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is?
Can you tell me how many times longer the mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is than the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom?
Now can you tell me what the ramifications of the difference between those times is for the idea of CO2 molecules absorbing and emitting IR photons in all directions?
You claim to be educated...so prove it.
That you're a fooking idiot.But I digress.
How about you explain how the coils on my stove manage to radiate heat despite being in full time contact with many many times as many molecules as is that single hot CO2 molecule will bump into?
Where do you get the idea, Sid, that in every one of those billion collisions, your chosen CO2 will give up energy?
I think it's about 2^500,000,000 more likely that the net effect of all those collisions will be ZERO.
That you're a fooking idiot.But I digress.
How about you explain how the coils on my stove manage to radiate heat despite being in full time contact with many many times as many molecules as is that single hot CO2 molecule will bump into?
Are you saying you can distinguish between radiated and convected heat? Interesting...How do you do it? How does the feel of radiated heat differ from that of convected heat?
Where do you get the idea, Sid, that in every one of those billion collisions, your chosen CO2 will give up energy?
Where do you get the idea that they don't. Energy is eager to move to a state of greater entropy...if convection is the easiest route, what makes you think the CO2 molecule would hold on to said energy a billion times longer just to radiate a photon?
You have demonstrated over and over that you don't "think" much at all. You parrot and you regurgitate..that's about it.I think it's about 2^500,000,000 more likely that the net effect of all those collisions will be ZERO.
This means that the popular mental image of a CO2 molecules emitting IR photons off in all directions which is the basis for the AGW hypothesis
So here's your big change rocks...What conclusions do you draw from those facts regarding the AGW hypothesis as described by climate science?
What you are saying is well understood. What is not well understood is why you think that shows that radiation is such a small part of the physics of atmospheric gasses. Your conclusion is very myopic.Well, since the mean time between molecular collisions is so much shorter than the decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon, the CO2 molecule will transfer its energy to another atom or molecule 99.9999999% of the time... This means that the popular mental image of a CO2 molecules emitting IR photons off in all directions which is the basis for the AGW hypothesis only happens once in every billion energy exchanges...Direct energy exchange between the CO2 and another atom or molecule happens the other 999,999,999 times. In other words; insofar as moving energy out of the atmosphere, convection rules....radiation is a bit player of such minute proportions that it hardly rates mention.
You've ignored the point that in a billion collisions of a single molecule, the vast, vast, vast likelihood is that the net change is ZERO. Address that.
Popular with who? Your voices?
AGW theory doesn't care about which molecule eventually re-radiates the photon. All that matters is that the CO2 initially absorbed the IR photon.
The hypothesis is completely unaffected by your straw man.
So, who feeds you this nonsense?
What you are saying is well understood. What is not well understood is why you think that shows that radiation is such a small part of the physics of atmospheric gasses. Your conclusion is very myopic.
The fact that vibrational energy of a single CO2 is mechanically damped ignores the equilibrium state of the full ensemble, which is covered in the Equipartition Theorm. There are plenty of CO2 molecules that will absorb and radiate IR and act as a sort of “greenhouse” “blanket”, even though absorption and immediate re-radiation of a single CO2 molecule is very rare.
You have a knack, either intentionally or through some bizarre variation of acute ignorance, of coming up with insane interpretations of facts which you try to use to reject widely accepted and scientific processes (see SSDD and radiative heat transfer, photons and quantum mechanics). Heat transfer off the planet depends on radiative transfer, particularly in the thinner upper atmosphere where your collisions fall to a rarity and where the radiation has its first chance at actually departing. A little tricky to do a convective transfer to a vacuum, isn't it Sid.
The Greenhouse effect is quite real. It is universally accepted among anyone that's passed 7th grade science. Your arguments against it are a waste of time for all and indicative only that you have no valid argument. That's what happens when you choose to argue for a falsehood.
