COLDER Greenland GAINS Ice In June – Media Silent

[ding]

Did you make it through algebra?

Funny how someone could be an "engineer" yet not be able to discuss equations.

I've literally never seen anything like it! You must be a FRAUD.

AGW is YOUR belief, right? YOU believe that more CO2 causes temperature to increase, right? What's the change in temperature for a change in CO2 concentrations from 280 ppm to 420 ppm? Just the GHG effect. No feedback from increasing water vapor.

 

[Sunsettommy]

She can't. She can't even state what the associated temperature from CO2 is without the supposed feedbacks.

You guys surprised? we are dealing with a typical warmist/alarmist simpleton who does not realize the IPCC doesn't support her/his assertion on this.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You guys surprised? we are dealing with a typical warmist/alarmist simpleton who does not realize the IPCC doesn't support her/his assertion on this.

Not really... They have been fed so much crap that they don't know what real science looks like. It bothers me that even the so called "educated" are incapable of very basic cognitive thought process. The dead giveaway for me was when he/she/it could not define the "greenhouse" process.

 

[ding]

You guys surprised? we are dealing with a typical warmist/alarmist simpleton who does not realize the IPCC doesn't support her/his assertion on this.

I'm only surprised they aren't surprised.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Not really... They have been fed so much crap that they don't know what real science looks like. It bothers me that even the so called "educated" are incapable of very basic cognitive thought process. The dead giveaway for me was when he/she/it could not define the "greenhouse" process.

But that has been a common problem from the start while some of us including me who has NO science degree (Have Technology degree) can see the B.S. easily and note the absurdity of the Positive Feedback Loop modeling that never shows up in the Lower Tropical Troposphere after 30 years of babbling about it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

But that has been a common problem from the start while some of us including me who has NO science degree (Have Technology degree) can see the B.S. easily and note the absurdity of the Positive Feedback Loop modeling that never shows up in the Lower Tropical Troposphere after 30 years of babbling about it.

I think that is what the fearmongers were counting on, that the uneducated would take them at their word and never check to see if they were duping them. That fallacy argument, appeal to authority.

 

[Meister]

Cleaned up several pages of this thread, stay on topic going forward.
Stop with the flames, 2 posters have been thread banned for the in fighting between the two.
Next time the thread will just be closed.

 

[justoffal]

Are you ever going to explain how atmospheric CO2 can warm the ocean 700m deep?

It works the other way around and this is why they are so confused. As the water warms it releases CO2....as it cools it takes I'm CO2...the CO2 PPM is a function of ocean water temp.
And the truth is they just don't know very much about it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Is this increasing? from Left to Right?

View attachment 661713

Logarithmic functions can be decreasing or increasing with the independent variable. You only got stock in the decreasing ones or what? Quit pretending you didn't SUGGEST that GW heating wasn't logarithmically INCREASING with CO2 conc.

 

[flacaltenn]

From what I have read the climate sensitivity is 2 to 3 times greater than the GHG effect of CO2. Is that your understanding too? Or is it still a mystery to you?

Yeah the climate sensitivity ESTIMATES have come DOWN almost linearly over 30 years. Started in the TEENS -- now hover around 2 to 4.

But think about it. The BATTLE over global warning is ALL about SINGLE NUMBERS -- like the GMeanASTemp and climate sensititivity -- but there's no such thing as having JUST ONE CLIMATE ZONE on this planet. It's an ABSURDLY reduced construct. Absolutely stupid to argue about single numbers like that.

We KNOW the arctic is 2 to 3 times GREATER climate sensitivity than the GLOBAL average -- primarily because the bulk is SEA ICE. And the Antarctic is probably (haven't checked in years) less than 1/2 of the Global average CSensitivity because it's frozen rock solid desert. Also covered in ice but LACKS the thermal circulation importance of the Arctic and the jet streams.

And it's the thermal distribution of these zones that makes our weather and climate. If you dont understand and model the thermo flows and CS differences, you'll NEVER REALLY HAVE great modeling of future planet temperatures.

 

[flacaltenn]

Logarithmic functions can be decreasing or increasing with the independent variable. You only got stock in the decreasing ones or what? Quit pretending you didn't SUGGEST that GW heating wasn't logarithmically INCREASING with CO2 conc.

Just so I dont get blowback on that -- the INVERSE log function becomes an "exponential".. And would be preferred to be CALLED "an exponential", but it just a matter of which you make the independent/dependent variable.

 

[jc456]

yes, but that doesn't really matter much. The impact is still increasing and it's still not good.

nope, it slopes. know what a flat slope means?

 

[Billy_Bob]

nope, it slopes. know what a flat slope means?

View attachment 661789

This is reflected/emitted energy.. Here is the one that converts it into deg C..

You will note that the observed is but half of the modeled expectation. Deg C is on the left axis

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yeah the climate sensitivity ESTIMATES have come DOWN almost linearly over 30 years. Started in the TEENS -- now hover around 2 to 4.

But think about it. The BATTLE over global warning is ALL about SINGLE NUMBERS -- like the GMeanASTemp and climate sensititivity -- but there's no such thing as having JUST ONE CLIMATE ZONE on this planet. It's an ABSURDLY reduced construct. Absolutely stupid to argue about single numbers like that.

We KNOW the arctic is 2 to 3 times GREATER climate sensitivity than the GLOBAL average -- primarily because the bulk is SEA ICE. And the Antarctic is probably (haven't checked in years) less than 1/2 of the Global average CSensitivity because it's frozen rock solid desert. Also covered in ice but LACKS the thermal circulation importance of the Arctic and the jet streams.

And it's the thermal distribution of these zones that makes our weather and climate. If you dont understand and model the thermo flows and CS differences, you'll NEVER REALLY HAVE great modeling of future planet temperatures.

CS has dropped to around 1 (at the equator) and may go lower real soon... Depends on the cooling and how deep it becomes.

 

[justoffal]

Yeah the climate sensitivity ESTIMATES have come DOWN almost linearly over 30 years. Started in the TEENS -- now hover around 2 to 4.

But think about it. The BATTLE over global warning is ALL about SINGLE NUMBERS -- like the GMeanASTemp and climate sensititivity -- but there's no such thing as having JUST ONE CLIMATE ZONE on this planet. It's an ABSURDLY reduced construct. Absolutely stupid to argue about single numbers like that.

We KNOW the arctic is 2 to 3 times GREATER climate sensitivity than the GLOBAL average -- primarily because the bulk is SEA ICE. And the Antarctic is probably (haven't checked in years) less than 1/2 of the Global average CSensitivity because it's frozen rock solid desert. Also covered in ice but LACKS the thermal circulation importance of the Arctic and the jet streams.

And it's the thermal distribution of these zones that makes our weather and climate. If you dont understand and model the thermo flows and CS differences, you'll NEVER REALLY HAVE great modeling of future planet temperatures.

Additionally heat transfer rates are not linear relationships with Delta T. It follows of course that the same quantity of heat will produce a far more reactive response from something that extremely cold as opposed to something that is not. How they manage to ignore that has always confounded me.

 

[westwall]

CS has dropped to around 1 (at the equator) and may go lower real soon... Depends on the cooling and how deep it becomes.

I won't be surprised if it is dropped to 0.01....

 

[mamooth]

Additionally heat transfer rates are not linear relationships with Delta T. It follows of course that the same quantity of heat will produce a far more reactive response from something that extremely cold as opposed to something that is not. How they manage to ignore that has always confounded me.

Who is ignoring that?

Why did you say such a stupid thing?

Do you understand how it shows how clueless you are about the topic?

This is basic stuff, and all of the deniers here faceplant at it. Given their complete ignorance of every aspect of the topic, they shouldn't be bothering the adults.

(And deniers? Remember that dogpiling and shrieking insults has never worked against me. And yeah, bummer for you, because that's all you've ever had.)

 

[mamooth]

Logarithmic functions can be decreasing or increasing with the independent variable. You only got stock in the decreasing ones or what? Quit pretending you didn't SUGGEST that GW heating wasn't logarithmically INCREASING with CO2 conc.

Here's what you responded to.

Climate sensitivity is logarithmic with regards to concentration, moron.

He specifically said the exact opposite of what you claimed he said.

What I'm trying to figure out is why you chose to lie like that, when it's so simple to demonstrate that you lied. What did you hope to achieve by lying in such a stupid manner?

 

[justoffal]

Who is ignoring that?

Why did you say such a stupid thing?

Do you understand how it shows how clueless you are about the topic?

This is basic stuff, and all of the deniers here faceplant at it. Given their complete ignorance of every aspect of the topic, they shouldn't be bothering the adults.

(And deniers? Remember that dogpiling and shrieking insults has never worked against me. And yeah, bummer for you, because that's all you've ever had.)

Yes its very basic stuff and you're not showing any understanding of it. Care to explain the non linear relationship of heat transfer in various Delta T situations?
I am paying attention.

JO

 

[mamooth]

Yes its very basic stuff and you're not showing any understanding of it. Care to explain the non linear relationship of heat transfer in various Delta T situations?
I am paying attention.

So in other words, you won't tell us where these supposedly non-linear heat transfer rates are ignored in climate science.

That's because you can't, because you made it all up.

If you'd like to show otherwise, I'm paying attention. Come on, you're the one who made the crazy claim, so back it up.