Earth's Climate or Why you should laugh at the Warmers

[mamooth]

Frank, since you insist on completely ignoring reality, all we can do is wish you a happy life in your alternate-reality dimension. You're certainly not worth anybody's time.

 

[jc456]

Frank, since you insist on completely ignoring reality, all we can do is wish you a happy life in your alternate-reality dimension. You're certainly not worth anybody's time.

especially when one can't answer a question with any reliable information. It's a shame that warmers laugh and produce junk science. oh sorry, pseudoscience.

 

[IanC]

Climate science has developed a bad habit of pulling a few pretty rocks out of the pile of gravel that is the sum of evidence. When questioned on their methods or conclusions they scream or scoff at the 'deniers'. Only to modify their methods and clawback from their conclusions in subsequent papers.

 

[jc456]

Climate science has developed a bad habit of pulling a few pretty rocks out of the pile of gravel that is the sum of evidence. When questioned on their methods or conclusions they scream or scoff at the 'deniers'. Only to modify their methods and clawback from their conclusions in subsequent papers.

hey, I know sometimes I come across as an asshole, I get it. In reality I live my life believing in logic. If it doesn't seem logical, it's bullshit. And almost nothing, I mean almost nothing warmers post up is factually based. I work in Telecommunications and work sometimes in a lab. I did trade show installations for all the equipment. I am very big on experiments. Very big. For them to state that they believe in science and then can't produce one experiment that supports their pseudoscience is laughing at real science. In fact, I doubt any of them would recognize real science if it bit them. Hypothesis must be proven to state a fact. Period end of story.To say otherwise is someone just being a bigger asshole.

I disagree with you on only one point and that is back radiation. I have surfed many places on the internet and to date have not found one experiment that proves back radiation exists. In fact, I find as many places that don't believe in back radiation as there are for ones that do believe. Another debate that is stagnant.

One thing I can say is that back in the early 80s there were some pretty wicked cold winters here in Chi town. -25 wicked degrees and wicked wind chills at -80. 2014 was very similar in the wicked temps, thirty years later. Now I'm not sure how many folks live in multiple cities in their lives, but when someone tells me that the weather is getting warmer around the globe, well maybe where they live. But to use the word global is just a kick in the nuts for the folks who live between Chicago and Boston. Sorry, you all are talking crackers. Sorry, my 30 year reality doesn't line up with your bullshit graphs.

 

[IanC]

Climate science has developed a bad habit of pulling a few pretty rocks out of the pile of gravel that is the sum of evidence. When questioned on their methods or conclusions they scream or scoff at the 'deniers'. Only to modify their methods and clawback from their conclusions in subsequent papers.

hey, I know sometimes I come across as an asshole, I get it. In reality I live my life believing in logic. If it doesn't seem logical, it's bullshit. And almost nothing, I mean almost nothing warmers post up is factually based. I work in Telecommunications and work sometimes in a lab. I did trade show installations for all the equipment. I am very big on experiments. Very big. For them to state that they believe in science and then can't produce one experiment that supports their pseudoscience is laughing at real science. In fact, I doubt any of them would recognize real science if it bit them. Hypothesis must be proven to state a fact. Period end of story.To say otherwise is someone just being a bigger asshole.

I disagree with you on only one point and that is back radiation. I have surfed many places on the internet and to date have not found one experiment that proves back radiation exists. In fact, I find as many places that don't believe in back radiation as there are for ones that do believe. Another debate that is stagnant.

One thing I can say is that back in the early 80s there were some pretty wicked cold winters here in Chi town. -25 wicked degrees and wicked wind chills at -80. 2014 was very similar in the wicked temps, thirty years later. Now I'm not sure how many folks live in multiple cities in their lives, but when someone tells me that the weather is getting warmer around the globe, well maybe where they live. But to use the word global is just a kick in the nuts for the folks who live between Chicago and Boston. Sorry, you all are talking crackers. Sorry, my 30 year reality doesn't line up with your bullshit graphs.

No problem. I don't care if you agree with me or not.

I bet you still haven't come up with a logical reason for the surface to be radiating 400W when the Sun is only supplying 165W without back radiation. Or as physicists call it, 'radiation'.

 

[jc456]

Climate science has developed a bad habit of pulling a few pretty rocks out of the pile of gravel that is the sum of evidence. When questioned on their methods or conclusions they scream or scoff at the 'deniers'. Only to modify their methods and clawback from their conclusions in subsequent papers.

hey, I know sometimes I come across as an asshole, I get it. In reality I live my life believing in logic. If it doesn't seem logical, it's bullshit. And almost nothing, I mean almost nothing warmers post up is factually based. I work in Telecommunications and work sometimes in a lab. I did trade show installations for all the equipment. I am very big on experiments. Very big. For them to state that they believe in science and then can't produce one experiment that supports their pseudoscience is laughing at real science. In fact, I doubt any of them would recognize real science if it bit them. Hypothesis must be proven to state a fact. Period end of story.To say otherwise is someone just being a bigger asshole.

I disagree with you on only one point and that is back radiation. I have surfed many places on the internet and to date have not found one experiment that proves back radiation exists. In fact, I find as many places that don't believe in back radiation as there are for ones that do believe. Another debate that is stagnant.

One thing I can say is that back in the early 80s there were some pretty wicked cold winters here in Chi town. -25 wicked degrees and wicked wind chills at -80. 2014 was very similar in the wicked temps, thirty years later. Now I'm not sure how many folks live in multiple cities in their lives, but when someone tells me that the weather is getting warmer around the globe, well maybe where they live. But to use the word global is just a kick in the nuts for the folks who live between Chicago and Boston. Sorry, you all are talking crackers. Sorry, my 30 year reality doesn't line up with your bullshit graphs.

No problem. I don't care if you agree with me or not.

I bet you still haven't come up with a logical reason for the surface to be radiating 400W when the Sun is only supplying 165W without back radiation. Or as physicists call it, 'radiation'.

I told you. the rays heat cars, one can fry an egg on a car. How about the heat off of sand and the soil, the pavement the oceans, they all radiate after being hit by rays from the sun.

Walk barefoot on a beach high sun and you'll be walking quickly.

not sure what that has to do with back radiation from the atmosphere.

 

[IanC]

Climate science has developed a bad habit of pulling a few pretty rocks out of the pile of gravel that is the sum of evidence. When questioned on their methods or conclusions they scream or scoff at the 'deniers'. Only to modify their methods and clawback from their conclusions in subsequent papers.

hey, I know sometimes I come across as an asshole, I get it. In reality I live my life believing in logic. If it doesn't seem logical, it's bullshit. And almost nothing, I mean almost nothing warmers post up is factually based. I work in Telecommunications and work sometimes in a lab. I did trade show installations for all the equipment. I am very big on experiments. Very big. For them to state that they believe in science and then can't produce one experiment that supports their pseudoscience is laughing at real science. In fact, I doubt any of them would recognize real science if it bit them. Hypothesis must be proven to state a fact. Period end of story.To say otherwise is someone just being a bigger asshole.

I disagree with you on only one point and that is back radiation. I have surfed many places on the internet and to date have not found one experiment that proves back radiation exists. In fact, I find as many places that don't believe in back radiation as there are for ones that do believe. Another debate that is stagnant.

One thing I can say is that back in the early 80s there were some pretty wicked cold winters here in Chi town. -25 wicked degrees and wicked wind chills at -80. 2014 was very similar in the wicked temps, thirty years later. Now I'm not sure how many folks live in multiple cities in their lives, but when someone tells me that the weather is getting warmer around the globe, well maybe where they live. But to use the word global is just a kick in the nuts for the folks who live between Chicago and Boston. Sorry, you all are talking crackers. Sorry, my 30 year reality doesn't line up with your bullshit graphs.

No problem. I don't care if you agree with me or not.

I bet you still haven't come up with a logical reason for the surface to be radiating 400W when the Sun is only supplying 165W without back radiation. Or as physicists call it, 'radiation'.

I told you. the rays heat cars, one can fry an egg on a car. How about the heat off of sand and the soil, the pavement the oceans, they all radiate after being hit by rays from the sun.

Walk barefoot on a beach high sun and you'll be walking quickly.

not sure what that has to do with back radiation from the atmosphere.

Hahahaha. What a bizarre answer! No place on Earth radiates exactly 400W or receives exactly 165W from the Sun, except by coincidence. We are talking averages here not anecdotes.

As an aside, do you know why chrome doorhandles get so hot?

 

[jc456]

Climate science has developed a bad habit of pulling a few pretty rocks out of the pile of gravel that is the sum of evidence. When questioned on their methods or conclusions they scream or scoff at the 'deniers'. Only to modify their methods and clawback from their conclusions in subsequent papers.

hey, I know sometimes I come across as an asshole, I get it. In reality I live my life believing in logic. If it doesn't seem logical, it's bullshit. And almost nothing, I mean almost nothing warmers post up is factually based. I work in Telecommunications and work sometimes in a lab. I did trade show installations for all the equipment. I am very big on experiments. Very big. For them to state that they believe in science and then can't produce one experiment that supports their pseudoscience is laughing at real science. In fact, I doubt any of them would recognize real science if it bit them. Hypothesis must be proven to state a fact. Period end of story.To say otherwise is someone just being a bigger asshole.

I disagree with you on only one point and that is back radiation. I have surfed many places on the internet and to date have not found one experiment that proves back radiation exists. In fact, I find as many places that don't believe in back radiation as there are for ones that do believe. Another debate that is stagnant.

One thing I can say is that back in the early 80s there were some pretty wicked cold winters here in Chi town. -25 wicked degrees and wicked wind chills at -80. 2014 was very similar in the wicked temps, thirty years later. Now I'm not sure how many folks live in multiple cities in their lives, but when someone tells me that the weather is getting warmer around the globe, well maybe where they live. But to use the word global is just a kick in the nuts for the folks who live between Chicago and Boston. Sorry, you all are talking crackers. Sorry, my 30 year reality doesn't line up with your bullshit graphs.

No problem. I don't care if you agree with me or not.

I bet you still haven't come up with a logical reason for the surface to be radiating 400W when the Sun is only supplying 165W without back radiation. Or as physicists call it, 'radiation'.

I told you. the rays heat cars, one can fry an egg on a car. How about the heat off of sand and the soil, the pavement the oceans, they all radiate after being hit by rays from the sun.

Walk barefoot on a beach high sun and you'll be walking quickly.

not sure what that has to do with back radiation from the atmosphere.

Hahahaha. What a bizarre answer! No place on Earth radiates exactly 400W or receives exactly 165W from the Sun, except by coincidence. We are talking averages here not anecdotes.

As an aside, do you know why chrome doorhandles get so hot?

because they get heated by a heat source? Sort of a vague question.

 

[jc456]

Climate science has developed a bad habit of pulling a few pretty rocks out of the pile of gravel that is the sum of evidence. When questioned on their methods or conclusions they scream or scoff at the 'deniers'. Only to modify their methods and clawback from their conclusions in subsequent papers.

hey, I know sometimes I come across as an asshole, I get it. In reality I live my life believing in logic. If it doesn't seem logical, it's bullshit. And almost nothing, I mean almost nothing warmers post up is factually based. I work in Telecommunications and work sometimes in a lab. I did trade show installations for all the equipment. I am very big on experiments. Very big. For them to state that they believe in science and then can't produce one experiment that supports their pseudoscience is laughing at real science. In fact, I doubt any of them would recognize real science if it bit them. Hypothesis must be proven to state a fact. Period end of story.To say otherwise is someone just being a bigger asshole.

I disagree with you on only one point and that is back radiation. I have surfed many places on the internet and to date have not found one experiment that proves back radiation exists. In fact, I find as many places that don't believe in back radiation as there are for ones that do believe. Another debate that is stagnant.

One thing I can say is that back in the early 80s there were some pretty wicked cold winters here in Chi town. -25 wicked degrees and wicked wind chills at -80. 2014 was very similar in the wicked temps, thirty years later. Now I'm not sure how many folks live in multiple cities in their lives, but when someone tells me that the weather is getting warmer around the globe, well maybe where they live. But to use the word global is just a kick in the nuts for the folks who live between Chicago and Boston. Sorry, you all are talking crackers. Sorry, my 30 year reality doesn't line up with your bullshit graphs.

No problem. I don't care if you agree with me or not.

I bet you still haven't come up with a logical reason for the surface to be radiating 400W when the Sun is only supplying 165W without back radiation. Or as physicists call it, 'radiation'.

I told you. the rays heat cars, one can fry an egg on a car. How about the heat off of sand and the soil, the pavement the oceans, they all radiate after being hit by rays from the sun.

Walk barefoot on a beach high sun and you'll be walking quickly.

not sure what that has to do with back radiation from the atmosphere.

Hahahaha. What a bizarre answer! No place on Earth radiates exactly 400W or receives exactly 165W from the Sun, except by coincidence. We are talking averages here not anecdotes.

As an aside, do you know why chrome doorhandles get so hot?

what gets hotter in direct sun, asphalt or concrete? Sand or soil?

 

[IanC]

In a way, my question and yours are related . the emissivity of chrome is poor at many temps, especially at IR. Concrete, asphalt, sand and soil all have high emissivity, but of the four soil usually has moisture content that uses up