Climate scientist blows the lid off the ‘manufactured consensus’

[Captain Caveman]

Lysenkoism

Aka, Mein Kampf.

Everything lefty goes full circle to Nazism

 

[ReinyDays]

Why does my kitchen heat up when I boil water?

Are you boiling your water with a 5,000ºC heat source? ... that's "white hot" for comparison ... in fact, you'd be kicking out so much UVB, you'd be poisoning yourself with ozone ...

... now all your steel is melting and anything combustible is now quickly burning ... and yes, your water will boil ... so will you ...

 

[EMH]

May I see your satellite data from before the Age of Satellites? ... [giggle] ... also, which satellite band are we using as a proxy for temperature? ...

How are you compensating your balloon data against thermal equilibrium ... i.e. how do you account for adiabatic heating and cooling? ...

=====

I'm not saying you're wrong ... but I am saying is using surface temperatures and known gradients, we can calculate average surface temperature ... and these have increased 1ºC over the past 140 years ... give or take a degree ...

The difference is NOAA publishes their methods ... you don't ...

Your "surface readings" pick up Urban Heat Sink Effect because the temp data 30 years old and older is almost ALL from GROWING URBAN AREAS, and your side has LIED about that. The warming of growing urban areas on the surface is the only warming your side has in the raw data. Every other claim of "warming" is fudged fraud.

Certainly EMH has documented over and over here WHEN the satellites went up and what your side did with the CANE data. When the satellites went up in the 1970s, we started to see canes and TS that died over water that we did not see before the satellites. YOUR SIDE used that to claim an "increase" in storms. THAT is the level of "integrity" we have come to expect from the Co2 FRAUD.


Posted over and over, the satellite and balloon data was highly correlated and showed NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE despite rising Co2, causing YOUR SIDE to FUDGE the data in 2005 using the following excuses....


The IR satellites had "orbit wobble" so a flat line was FUDGED into an upward slope. Small changes in the orbit of the satellites in reality did not AT ALL change the temperature readings.

The balloons, we were told, had a "shade issue" that was CONSTANT THE WHOLE TIME, possibly justifying a one time CONSTANT adjustment to ALL DATA, but once again a flat line was FUDGED into an upwards slope by your taxpayer funded heroes...


Care to justify that???

 

[EMH]

Winds move atmospheric heat around to places where it is absorbed, mainly by the oceans.

So you admit there is NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE, and that is your laughable BS excuse for it.... OK....

PROBLEM - OCEANS ARE NOT WARMING AT ALL EITHER

 

[ReinyDays]

[blah blah blah]

Care to justify that???

Without data, you're just making this all up as you go ... you can claim the data supports you, but you never post the data ... so how can we check? ...

NOAA posts their data ... and you can collaborate this data against local newspapers ...

The Urban Heat Island Effect is proof positive of AGW Theory ... thank you ... it's always fun when folks rely on the theory they're trying to refute ... too funny ...

The IR satellites had "orbit wobble" so a flat line was FUDGED into an upward slope. Small changes in the orbit of the satellites in reality did not AT ALL change the temperature readings.

This problem was corrected at the beginning of the 20th Century ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... what band do they use as a proxy for temperature ... I'm easy, use the Gen/6 equipment ...

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Sorry, but that is clearly wrong.

For example, there was no Northwest Passage through the Artic Ocean, from Europe to Asia, until 1997, when the Artic ice cap shrank about half its normal size in the summer.
That Northwest Passage had not existed for over 100,000 years before that.
And it was not just an extreme of a normal climate cycle, because the normal warming cycle was about 5,000 years ago, and it is supposed to be cooling off right now.


If you want another example, look at the history of the glaciers that used to be on top of Mt. Kilimanjaro.
The ice layers were over 100,000 years old, and now are all gone.

While there are stronger greenhouse gases then CO2,

Have You Hugged Your Tree Today?

Data cherry-pickers make rules out of the exceptions. In our time, this is the kind of shallow thinking that passes for "education."

And there is no reason to respect the education of anyone who uses "then" for than.

 

[EMH]

so how can we check?

With a lawsuit - to get that data. Funny thing is, up until 2005, neither side disputed the DATA. The Co2 FRAUD hated it, but did not dispute it. The Co2 fraud also hated the ocean data showing no warming, and fudged that too....

The Urban Heat Island Effect is proof positive of AGW Theory

Wordsmithing again. Who is the one who brought it up? Yeah, the poster who posted it isn't disputing it, dipshit. Humans warm growing urban areas.

PROBLEM - EVEN WITH THAT THE ATMOSPHERE IS NOT WARMING!!!!!!!

Co2 + Urban Heat = NO WARMING

LMFAO!!!


So is Earth warming or not???


LOL!!!

 

[Woodznutz]

Are you boiling your water with a 5,000ºC heat source? ... that's "white hot" for comparison ... in fact, you'd be kicking out so much UVB, you'd be poisoning yourself with ozone ...

... now all your steel is melting and anything combustible is now quickly burning ... and yes, your water will boil ... so will you ...

I was responding to this.

"... and the 500 calories per gram that takes ... it only takes 100 calories to bring a gram water from freezing to boiling ... and then 500 calories to boil that gram off, and none of these 500 calories has any effect on temperature ..."

 

[Woodznutz]

No point in posting a link as you would just call it junk science.

 

[ReinyDays]

So is Earth warming or not???

Over long time periods ... the Earth is cooling ... using the ice core data, we were at thermal maximum about 10k years ago, and will be gradually cooling off until we reach thermal minimum in around 120k years ... and then another quick rise in global temperatures to maximum, then slow cooling to minimum again ...

An oscillation ... no, I don't know why ... I don't think anyone does ... but like almost all meteorological data, there's a lot of white noise ... a large variability to the averages stated ...

Tell us again which satellite band you're using for a proxy for temperature ... I'm sorry, the Webb telescope temperature is currently -225ºC ... kinda sorta always been that cold where the satellites orbit ... maybe you're confusing this with photometry of the ocean surface ...

 

[Woodznutz]

"Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die."

Same with our problems. Everyone wants them solved but no one wants to lift a finger in the effort.

 

[expat_panama]

Right ... our photons from the Sun are being absorbed at the surface ... a few molecules deep on land, more like a centimeter in clear water ... this creates a massive temperature difference between the lowest layer of air + the next layers of molecules downward and this surface super hot layer ... 2nd Law of Thermodynamics demands this energy move toward equilibrium ... and this energy moves EVERY way it can ...

Conduction downward is very slow, and safely ignored ... well over half this extra energy is simply re-radiatied back out towards space ... what amateur climate scientist always forget is how much energy is used to evaporate water and convects energy upwards ...

... and the 500 calories per gram that takes ... it only takes 100 calories to bring a gram water from freezing to boiling ... and then 500 calories to boil that gram off, and none of these 500 calories has any effect on temperature ...

iow, the science is simple and straight forward while few seem willing to get into it in any depth.

 

[EMH]

the ice core data

records temperature at that one spot.


Greenland froze while North America thawed. Planet Earth does not warm and cool as a whole. It has continent specific ice ages, and the total amount of ice on the planet dictates temperature.

 

[ReinyDays]

iow, the science is simple and straight forward while few seem willing to get into it in any depth.

The biggest mistake I see is when scientists say "surface", they don't mean a volume ... they mean a surface, one layer of molecules if you like ...

The Sun heats the Earth's surface, and it is this surface that heats the air ... then buoyancy happens and we have Atmospheric Circulation) ... climatology attempts to "average out" the turbulence ...

This is simple and straight forward if we remember to treat statistical results like an annoyed tarantula ... very judicially ...

 

[ReinyDays]

records temperature at that one spot.


Greenland froze while North America thawed. Planet Earth does not warm and cool as a whole. It has continent specific ice ages, and the total amount of ice on the planet dictates temperature.

Please post your data ... a link is fine ... thanx in advance ...

Tell us again which satellite band you're using for a proxy for temperature ...

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

"Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die."

Same with our problems. Everyone wants them solved but no one wants to lift a finger in the effort.

The Smothers Brothers

We want to, but we are not allowed to by a decadent, destructive, and self-appointed ruling class, which has absolute power over all change.

 

[Woodznutz]

The Smothers Brothers

We want to, but we are not allowed to by a decadent, destructive, and self-appointed ruling class, which has absolute power over all change.

The people are as guilty as the leaders.

 

[expat_panama]

The biggest mistake I see is when scientists say "surface", they don't mean a volume ... they mean a surface, one layer of molecules if you like ...

The Sun heats the Earth's surface, and it is this surface that heats the air ... then buoyancy happens and we have Atmospheric Circulation) ... climatology attempts to "average out" the turbulence ...

This is simple and straight forward if we remember to treat statistical results like an annoyed tarantula ... very judicially ...

The thing we learn in middle school science is that we can take a temperature of a surface but we can't put heat into it or take heat out of it. It's possible that the earth's surface is warming (tho I've yet to see the measurements) but the green house affect can't heat it up. We can only put heat into a mass. A surface is not a mass.

 

[ReinyDays]

The thing we learn in middle school science is that we can take a temperature of a surface but we can't put heat into it or take heat out of it. It's possible that the earth's surface is warming (tho I've yet to see the measurements) but the green house affect can't heat it up. We can only put heat into a mass. A surface is not a mass.

... but the atmosphere does have mass ... and the more GHGs in the atmosphere, the higher the surface temperature ... which in turn heats the atmosphere and/or evaporates water ... I did mention this "surface" is about a centimeter thick in ocean water ... 71% of the Earth's surface ...

 

[EMH]

Please post your data ... a link is fine ... thanx in advance ...

Tell us again which satellite band you're using for a proxy for temperature ...

This is once again a pathetic attempt to claim somehow I am in possession of that which was fudged in 2005. I am not. Maybe you can sue the US govt and get it.

The simple truth is as follows.

The satellites and balloons were the TWO and ONLY TWO measures of atmospheric temps. Both showed NO WARMING during rising Co2 with high correlation. There was no need to question such data. YOUR SIDE then FUDGED BOTH with laughable BULLSHIT to change a flat line into an upward slope. NBC documents it.


So, if the theory is that increasing atmospheric Co2 causes atmospheric warming, and we increased atmospheric Co2, and the atmosphere did NOT WARM, what should we do with the theory???