Ice, again

[Old Rocks]

Nope, never. Not one. I'm completely ignorant and clueless. My other personality has a PhD, however.

Really

 

[Abraham3]

Nope, never. Not one. I'm completely ignorant and clueless. My other personality has a PhD, however.

A shame your other personality isn't real.

 

[SwimExpert]

You most certainly did.

No, no, no. That was my other other personality, Greg. We killed him because he narked us out to the cops about the meth lab and we got arrested. Fortunately Bertha managed to prostitute herself out to the cop to convince him to go back and say he didn't find anything. But my ass has been hurting all week since.

 

[SwimExpert]

Nope, never. Not one. I'm completely ignorant and clueless. My other personality has a PhD, however.

Really

Depends on the day of the week, and whether the weather is above or below average temperature norms.

 

[SwimExpert]

Nope, never. Not one. I'm completely ignorant and clueless. My other personality has a PhD, however.

A shame your other personality isn't real.

This would have been kinda funny if you had meant it to be funny. The fact that you're serious makes it fucking hilarious.

 

[Abraham3]

Once CO2 has absorbed some IR photons, what happens next? There seems to be a belief around these parts (, Ian,) that the only way the CO2 can get rid of that photon is by a conductive heat transfer. Would anyone care to try to explain why CO2 can't simply radiate it away? To a CO2 molecule, what's the difference?

 

[IanC]

Once CO2 has absorbed some IR photons, what happens next? There seems to be a belief around these parts (, Ian,) that the only way the CO2 can get rid of that photon is by a conductive heat transfer. Would anyone care to try to explain why CO2 can't simply radiate it away? To a CO2 molecule, what's the difference?

EXCELLENT!

you are now asking yourself some important questions. what do you think happens?

every photon of of CO2 reactive radiation given off by the surface has been absorbed in the first 10 metres of atmosphere and dispersed in all directions. if absorption/reemission was the only possibility what would happen?

is this type of radiation 'heat'?


an atmosphere of any composition warms the surface even, as it usually is, cooler than the surface temperature. why?

where does blackbody radiation come from? why can we measure 'temperature' in a gas by either radiation or pressure?

why is conduction so much more efficient in heat transfer than radiation?



and we havent even touched on the complexities of absorption, reflection, and phase change in H2O!

 

[Abraham3]

Ian, when CO2 absorbs an IR photon, it's temperature increases. That increases the likelihood that it will reradiate that photon and it will reradiate it in the same IR spectrum in which it absorbs. YOUR descriptions heretofore seem to have IGNORED reradiation. Your statements - that the IR energy is stopped and trapped in the first ten meters - seem to assume that that energy can only leave that CO2 by conduction. That is complete nonsense.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ian, explain all them complexities to the polar ice. And to the glacial ice. We have put a whole bunch of GHGs into the atmosphere, and it is warming rapidly. At the same time, we have a minor decline in the TSI of the sun. In fact, a decline that has some on this board rattling on about a Maunder Minimum. Yet, with a neutral ENSO, 2013 came in as the fourth warmest year on record. Seems the affects of the absorption bands for the GHGs are working pretty much as predicted.

 

[SSDD]

Ian, explain all them complexities to the polar ice. And to the glacial ice. We have put a whole bunch of GHGs into the atmosphere, and it is warming rapidly. At the same time, we have a minor decline in the TSI of the sun. In fact, a decline that has some on this board rattling on about a Maunder Minimum. Yet, with a neutral ENSO, 2013 came in as the fourth warmest year on record. Seems the affects of the absorption bands for the GHGs are working pretty much as predicted.

It isn't warming at all and hasn't for damned near 20 years.

 

[SSDD]

Ian, when CO2 absorbs an IR photon, it's temperature increases. That increases the likelihood that it will reradiate that photon and it will reradiate it in the same IR spectrum in which it absorbs. YOUR descriptions heretofore seem to have IGNORED reradiation. Your statements - that the IR energy is stopped and trapped in the first ten meters - seem to assume that that energy can only leave that CO2 by conduction. That is complete nonsense.

Another basic error. The CO2 molecule emits the energy at a slightly lower frequency than at which it was absorbed. You said yourself that the CO2 molecule heats up. Are you going to say that none of the LW energy is lost in this heating process? Are you saying that the heating is free with no lost energy thus allowing the energy to be emitted at the same frequency at which it was absorbed? Do you really think energy can be absorbed, heat up a molecule, and then be emitted at the same frequency with no energy loss?

CO2 absorbs in a couple of very narrow bands....if the energy the molecule absorbs is emitted at a slightly lower frequency...do you really think another CO2 molecule can absorb it?

Of course you think that. Your belief in the AGW hypothesis is proof positive that you are fully capable of magical thinking.

 

[gnarlylove]

It isn't warming at all and hasn't for damned near 20 years.

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries

Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries...Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes.

Some key points from the WMO press release.
--The decade was the warmest on record for both the northern and southern Hemisphere and for both land and ocean surface temperatures.
--94% of reporting countries to the WMO report had their warmest decade in 2001-2010 and no country reported a nationwide average decadal temperature anomaly cooler than the long term average.

IT isn't hard to spot these trends, even children can. But I've come to realize its even easier for a politically charged adult to deny these trends.

Yet another source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html

 

[westwall]

It isn't warming at all and hasn't for damned near 20 years.

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries

Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries...Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes.

Some key points from the WMO press release.
--The decade was the warmest on record for both the northern and southern Hemisphere and for both land and ocean surface temperatures.
--94% of reporting countries to the WMO report had their warmest decade in 2001-2010 and no country reported a nationwide average decadal temperature anomaly cooler than the long term average.

IT isn't hard to spot these trends, even children can. But I've come to realize its even easier for a politically charged adult to deny these trends.

Yet another source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html

We really don't care about the doctored results that your propagandists are putting out. The people of the world know they are full of crap. The evidence for that is all around us.
The 1930's CRUSH the 1990's in terms of heat.

Plug any city in, and compare the 1930's with 1998 your supposed warmest year. I found a couple of cities that had 100 degree days but they are few and far between. On the other hand it was difficult to find a city without multiple 100 degree days throughout the 1930's.

Based on that evidence alone (but there is far more to support it) it is clear that the '30s were FAR warmer than the 1990's, save in the data falsified brains of the climate fraudsters who's lifestyles and prestige are dependent on maintaining the fraud.



U.S. Historical Climatology Network

 

[SSDD]

It isn't warming at all and hasn't for damned near 20 years.

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries

Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries...Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes.

Some key points from the WMO press release.
--The decade was the warmest on record for both the northern and southern Hemisphere and for both land and ocean surface temperatures.
--94% of reporting countries to the WMO report had their warmest decade in 2001-2010 and no country reported a nationwide average decadal temperature anomaly cooler than the long term average.

IT isn't hard to spot these trends, even children can. But I've come to realize its even easier for a politically charged adult to deny these trends.

Yet another source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html

NOAA? The known data tampers? You believe them? Based on what? First off, consider the fact that NOAA has warmed more than 790 months since 2008 with nearly 80% of those months being post 1959 while at the same time, they have cooled 754 months since 2008 with more than 95% of those months being prior to 1960. Care to take a guess at what illusion that sort of pattern will create?

Then there is the fact that the satellite record has shown no warming since 1997. Interesting that every year for the past 17 years has been cooler than 1998 and yet, this is the warmest decade. More data tampering?

The claims of warmest this and warmest that are becoming absurd and those who make the claims are appearing less honest all the time. The warming stopped 17 years ago and the fact that climate science can't say why is ample evidence that they don't know nearly as much about the climate as they claim.

 

[SSDD]

It isn't warming at all and hasn't for damned near 20 years.

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries

Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries...Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes.

Some key points from the WMO press release.
--The decade was the warmest on record for both the northern and southern Hemisphere and for both land and ocean surface temperatures.
--94% of reporting countries to the WMO report had their warmest decade in 2001-2010 and no country reported a nationwide average decadal temperature anomaly cooler than the long term average.

IT isn't hard to spot these trends, even children can. But I've come to realize its even easier for a politically charged adult to deny these trends.

Yet another source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html

We really don't care about the doctored results that your propagandists are putting out. The people of the world know they are full of crap. The evidence for that is all around us.
The 1930's CRUSH the 1990's in terms of heat.

Plug any city in, and compare the 1930's with 1998 your supposed warmest year. I found a couple of cities that had 100 degree days but they are few and far between. On the other hand it was difficult to find a city without multiple 100 degree days throughout the 1930's.

Based on that evidence alone (but there is far more to support it) it is clear that the '30s were FAR warmer than the 1990's, save in the data falsified brains of the climate fraudsters who's lifestyles and prestige are dependent on maintaining the fraud.



U.S. Historical Climatology Network

You have to wonder how many know that they are propagating lies and how many are just under educated, misinformed, misdirected dupes. You would think that they could look at their maps and wonder why the greatest warming invariably occurs in the areas with the least amount of instrumentation.

 

[gnarlylove]

We really don't care about the doctored results that your propagandists are putting out.

I'm about an anti-propaganda you can get. I don't read from websites and blogs that are personal opinion of some credible and mostly non-credible folks. I don't try to fudge what I say by changing the data set, like you've clearly done. What city would you have me search? Only in America, right? BINGO!

The 1930's CRUSH the 1990's in terms of heat.

Maybe it's just me but we weren't even talking about the 90s. But your tactics have been evident all along: say anything you can of fact that appears to contradict climate change by neglecting what your data set refers to thereby not actually contradicting climate change at all but merely detracting from the main fact! It's the game of being right over having truth that we are all too familiar with. I want to respect you all but your beliefs are just rolled up shit.

Maybe it's just me but the US is not the only place on the planet. Your data/America reflects about 2% of the earths surface. Global warming refers to the whole planet.

It's evident what you are doing: narrowing your sample size to avoid the obvious fact: globally the 2000s have been the hottest decade on record. This doesn't mean the US is necessarily following this trend, it can be an outlier or simply be neutral. The several links I provided show that global trends absolutely confirm our previous decade was hotter than previous decades.

I'm sure I need to point out we aren't talking individual years, we are talking decade worth of temperature data collected from all around the globe. But even if we were talking individual years, globally, the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998, with 2005 and 2010 as the hottest.

 

[SSDD]

Here gnarley, some evidence of tampering outside the borders of the US....if you want more, I can provide more. And as you said, the US is a small part of the world. Look at your own maps and ask yourself why it is that the greatest warming seems to be occuring in areas with the least instrumental coverage. Don't you find that odd, or don't you think that much about the topic?

 

[Abraham3]

So, you think GISS decided to change the temperatures just to enhance the appearance of global warming and had no worry that the thousands of scientists who use their data would notice or care.

I guess that makes sense.



NOT.

 

[gnarlylove]

SSDD is always right. The world has not been warming the last two decades. No credible science exists that says the Earth is warming. Endless supply of BS.

 

[SSDD]

So, you think GISS decided to change the temperatures just to enhance the appearance of global warming and had no worry that the thousands of scientists who use their data would notice or care.

I guess that makes sense.



NOT.

Use your brain for just one moment...the vast majority of temperature adjustments to the period prior to 1960 have been down and the vast majority of adjustments after 1959 have been upward.....don't you think that temps after 1959 should be adjusted downward if they are to be adjusted at all due to the increased urban heat island effect due to spreading urban areas?

And the fact that thousands are using it doesn't make it right, or good science. Can you say error cascade?