NOAA/NCDC Commit Scienctic Fraud... Through Data Manipulation..

[SSDD]

[QUOTE="mamooth, post: 11926434, member: 39072"

Heat doesn't flow from cold to warm (on the macro scale). The sun heats the oceans, then the oceans heat the air. If the air warms a bit, less heat flows from the oceans into the air, and more heat ends up stored in the oceans. That is, exactly what is predicted by AGW theory happens. As usual.[/quote]

That's not at all what the AGW hypothesis states is happening....the AGW hypothesis is based on the greenhouse hypothesis and the greenhouse hypothesis says that the air is heating the surface of the earth...including the oceans. It says that energy is actually being absorbed by the land and the oceans from the air...not at all what you are saying.

Not surprising that you have never actually read your scriptures and therefore don't know what they say.

Here is the IPCC saying that the atmosphere is radiating energy which is absorbed by the surface of the earth...

Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf

 

[mamooth]

That's not at all what the AGW hypothesis states is happening....

Yes, it is. You're completely clueless, as is usual. Any climate theory, not just those about global warming, says that the sun warms the oceans/land, and the oceans/land then warm the air.

the AGW hypothesis is based on the greenhouse hypothesis and the greenhouse hypothesis says that the air is heating the surface of the earth...including the oceans

No, that's not at all what the greenhouse hypothesis says. Where do you get such nonsense?

It says that energy is actually being absorbed by the land and the oceans from the air...not at all what you are saying.

Totally wrong.

If I put on a blanket, my skin temperature goes up. That's not because heat is flowing from the blanket to my skin. It's because the blanket is slowing heat loss out of my skin. Same with the greenhouse theory. The surface warms because the surface effectively is the heat source, and the greenhouse gases slow heat loss out of the surface.

Not surprising that you have never actually read your scriptures and therefore don't know what they say.

You're making up loony stories, as usual. Being all the science says you're a joke, creating your own special little alternate science reality is the only option open to you.

 

[jc456]

That's not at all what the AGW hypothesis states is happening....

Yes, it is. You're completely clueless, as is usual. Any climate theory, not just those about global warming, says that the sun warms the oceans/land, and the oceans/land then warm the air.

the AGW hypothesis is based on the greenhouse hypothesis and the greenhouse hypothesis says that the air is heating the surface of the earth...including the oceans

No, that's not at all what the greenhouse hypothesis says. Where do you get such nonsense?

It says that energy is actually being absorbed by the land and the oceans from the air...not at all what you are saying.

Totally wrong.

If I put on a blanket, my skin temperature goes up. That's not because heat is flowing from the blanket to my skin. It's because the blanket is slowing heat loss out of my skin. Same with the greenhouse theory. The surface warms because the surface effectively is the heat source, and the greenhouse gases slow heat loss out of the surface.

Not surprising that you have never actually read your scriptures and therefore don't know what they say.

You're making up loony stories, as usual. Being all the science says you're a joke, creating your own special little alternate science reality is the only option open to you.

holy crap, I can't believe what I just read. haahahhahahahaahahahahaaha, a blanket does not make your skin get hotter, what kind of nonsense do you read.

And what SSDD posted and Frank posted are spot on what the AGW theory is. Me thinks you need to understand the policy you follow closer. There is no way oceans will get hotter because they aren't releasing heat. It's absurd. you just blew your entire AGW theory to smithereens. Blankets magically make skin hotter. wow.....the stupid never stops in tooth's world.

Edit: unless of course you wish to use an electric blanket. Was that what you meant?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So if a 120 ppm increase in CO2 generates enough heat to raise that system by .9 degrees, you'd expect a lab experiment with only air to heat by 4 degrees

No, you wouldn't expect such a crazy thing. At least no sane person would expect it, being it contradicts common sense and the laws of thermodynamics.

Heat doesn't flow from cold to warm (on the macro scale). The sun heats the oceans, then the oceans heat the air. If the air warms a bit, less heat flows from the oceans into the air, and more heat ends up stored in the oceans. That is, exactly what is predicted by AGW theory happens. As usual.

As far as your bizarre theory goes, you are the only person on the planet to believe in it, so nobody else cares.

So, the Sun bypasses the air on the way in to heat the ocean.

That's truly fucking amazing

So the wisp of CO2 is totally irrelevant in your system. Have you told Crick and Old Rocks?

 

[jc456]

So if a 120 ppm increase in CO2 generates enough heat to raise that system by .9 degrees, you'd expect a lab experiment with only air to heat by 4 degrees

No, you wouldn't expect such a crazy thing. At least no sane person would expect it, being it contradicts common sense and the laws of thermodynamics.

Heat doesn't flow from cold to warm (on the macro scale). The sun heats the oceans, then the oceans heat the air. If the air warms a bit, less heat flows from the oceans into the air, and more heat ends up stored in the oceans. That is, exactly what is predicted by AGW theory happens. As usual.

As far as your bizarre theory goes, you are the only person on the planet to believe in it, so nobody else cares.

So, the Sun bypasses the air on the way in to heat the ocean.

That's truly fucking amazing

So the wisp of CO2 is totally irrelevant in your system. Have you told Crick and Old Rocks?

right?

Frank, I can't stop laughing at this stuff.

 

[jc456]

That's not at all what the AGW hypothesis states is happening....

Yes, it is. You're completely clueless, as is usual. Any climate theory, not just those about global warming, says that the sun warms the oceans/land, and the oceans/land then warm the air.

the AGW hypothesis is based on the greenhouse hypothesis and the greenhouse hypothesis says that the air is heating the surface of the earth...including the oceans

No, that's not at all what the greenhouse hypothesis says. Where do you get such nonsense?

It says that energy is actually being absorbed by the land and the oceans from the air...not at all what you are saying.

Totally wrong.

If I put on a blanket, my skin temperature goes up. That's not because heat is flowing from the blanket to my skin. It's because the blanket is slowing heat loss out of my skin. Same with the greenhouse theory. The surface warms because the surface effectively is the heat source, and the greenhouse gases slow heat loss out of the surface.

Not surprising that you have never actually read your scriptures and therefore don't know what they say.

You're making up loony stories, as usual. Being all the science says you're a joke, creating your own special little alternate science reality is the only option open to you.

oh, one more thing I missed, have you measured the temperature of your skin? How much does your blankie make your skin warm up? and to your failed scenario, if your skin were indeed getting hotter, LOL, then yes the blanket would have to be allowing heat to flow to your skin how else could it go up?

 

[mamooth]

So, the Sun bypasses the air on the way in to heat the ocean.

You actually didn't know air is transparent to visible light?

Here's a clue. Go look at something. Do you see the air? No. That's because air is transparent to visible light. If there aren't clouds or aerosols to block it, the visible light is going to reach the earth's surface. And most of the sun's energy output is contained in the visible spectrum.

So the wisp of CO2 is totally irrelevant in your system. Have you told Crick and Old Rocks?

I have no idea how your diseased mind reached such a bizarre conclusion, hence I have no way to respond to it. I try to not to try to put myself in your shoes, as attempting to emulate your thought processes risks madness for anyone who tries. You'll have to translate your ramblings into normal English before normal people can understand them.

 

[jc456]

So, the Sun bypasses the air on the way in to heat the ocean.

You actually didn't know air is transparent to visible light?

Here's a clue. Go look at something. Do you see the air? No. That's because air is transparent to visible light. If there aren't clouds or aerosols to block it, the visible light is going to reach the earth's surface. And most of the sun's energy output is contained in the visible spectrum.

So the wisp of CO2 is totally irrelevant in your system. Have you told Crick and Old Rocks?

I have no idea how your diseased mind reached such a bizarre conclusion, hence I have no way to respond to it. I try to not to try to put myself in your shoes, as attempting to emulate your thought processes risks madness for anyone who tries. You'll have to translate your ramblings into normal English before normal people can understand them.

you need to stop, you're explanations are getting goofier each time you post. just admit your AGW theory has been trampled, because you have no idea how to explain how it works. It is funny indeed the level of stupid you show us daily though.

 

[mamooth]

oh, one more thing I missed, have you measured the temperature of your skin?

Poor jc. If he had ever slept with another human being next to him, he'd be very aware of how greatly skin temperature can vary.

How much does your blankie make your skin warm up?

A couple degrees, over the body core. Over the extremities, much more, but that's not directly from the blanket. When the core gets cold, the body restricts blood flow to extremities to conserve heat, so when the body core warms up again, the extremities will go from "Your feet are goddamn icicles!" back to normal temp.

and to your failed scenario, if your skin were indeed getting hotter, LOL, then yes the blanket would have to be allowing heat to flow to your skin how else could it go up?

It goes up from the heat is coming from inside the body, of course. There's no heat coming back from the blanket, as that would require heat flowing from colder to hotter. That's assuming a normal blanket, and not a foil space-blanket.

You're failing at basic thermodynamics. All the hardcore deniers do. It's how they got sucked into the cult. People who understand how science works with real-world phenomenon will instantly recognize what crap all the denialist "science" is.

 

[jc456]

oh, one more thing I missed, have you measured the temperature of your skin?

Poor jc. If he had ever slept with another human being next to him, he'd be very aware of how greatly skin temperature can vary.

How much does your blankie make your skin warm up?

A couple degrees, over the body core. Over the extremities, much more, but that's not directly from the blanket. When the core gets cold, the body restricts blood flow to extremities to conserve heat, so when the body core warms up again, the extremities will go from "Your feet are goddamn icicles!" back to normal temp.

and to your failed scenario, if your skin were indeed getting hotter, LOL, then yes the blanket would have to be allowing heat to flow to your skin how else could it go up?

It goes up from the heat is coming from inside the body, of course. There's no heat bouncing back from the blanket, as that would require heat flowing from colder to hotter.

You're failing at basic thermodynamics. All the hardcore deniers do. It's how they got sucked into the cult. People who understand how science works with real-world phenomenon will instantly recognize what crap all the denialist "science" is.

ohhhhhh so there is no back radiation? I thought everything radiated?

 

[mamooth]

Of course there's backradiation. Why would you think there wasn't? Backradiation is a mechanism by which GHG's slow heat flow out to space, which increases the temperature at the surface.

You hardcore deniers are dreadfully ignorant of all the basics, so you shouldn't be wasting the time of the grownups. It is considered very bad social form to jump into a conservation when you have no clue about the topic being discussed. That's what you keep doing. If you have no clue about what's being discussed, then you should just sit back and listen.

 

[jc456]

Of course there's backradiation. Why would you think there wasn't? Backradiation is a mechanism by which GHG's slow heat flow out to space, which increases the temperature at the surface.

You hardcore deniers are dreadfully ignorant of all the basics, so you shouldn't be wasting the time of the grownups. It is considered very bad social form to jump into a conservation when you have no clue about the topic being discussed. That's what you keep doing. If you have no clue about what's being discussed, then you should just sit back and listen.

back radiation is a myth and unproven.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, it is. You're completely clueless, as is usual. Any climate theory, not just those about global warming, says that the sun warms the oceans/land, and the oceans/land then warm the air.

Maybe your theory says that...but that isn't the official claim. You warmer wackos tend to adopt your favorite version of the greenhouse effect and many of them, yours included isn't what climate science officially says.

No, that's not at all what the greenhouse hypothesis says. Where do you get such nonsense?

Again..maybe not what your pet hypothesis says...but it is the official line... I agree that it is nonsense and I got it from the IPCC....maybe you missed the quote or maybe your bias/blindness prevented you from reading words that contradict your religion...but here it is again....directly from the IPCC.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf

Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

Totally wrong.

Of course it is totally wrong...but it is, none the less, the official greenhouse hypothesis....and the basis for all climate modeling.

If I put on a blanket, my skin temperature goes up. greenhouse gases slow heat loss out of the surface.

Actually, if you put a blanket around you and actually measure, wherever your skin touches the blanket, your skin temperature drops somewhat...the air under the blanket warms because convection is blocked...but your skin cools wherever the blanket touches....just as the second law predicts.

 

[mamooth]

back radiation is a myth and unproven.

Anyone with an infrared spectrometer can point it at the sky and directly measure the backradiation. You're denying a directly measurable phenomenon. That makes you look crazy.

 

[jc456]

back radiation is a myth and unproven.

Anyone with an infrared spectrometer can point it at the sky and directly measure the backradiation. You're denying a directly measurable phenomenon. That makes you look crazy.

wow, you act like it's that easy. If that were indeed true, then why would there be any folks who say back radiation doesn't exist? Hmmmmmm perhaps that tool doesn't do what you think it does.

 

[mamooth]

Maybe your theory says that...but that isn't the official claim.

Yes, it is. You failing to understand the most basic science has no bearing on the correctness of the science. When you understand that, you will have started down the path of enlightenment.

 

[jc456]

oh, and why don't they use them to determine temperatures of the planet?

 

[jc456]

Maybe your theory says that...but that isn't the official claim.

Yes, it is. You failing to understand the most basic science has no bearing on the correctness of the science. When you understand that, you will have started down the path of enlightenment.

basic science? You wouldn't know basic science if it hit you in the head. still haven't seen your evidence. That is basic science to have that. An experiment, which you don't have, basic science. It's very clear you have no idea what science even is.

 

[mamooth]

If that were indeed true, then why would there be folks who say it isn't.

Because those people are pathologically dishonest cultists.

Another way to show backradiation in action ...

The average surface area of an adult male human is 1.9 m^2.

Since some parts of your body radiate right back into the other parts, let's say the surface area radiating to the world is 1.5 m^2. You can set it at a little more or less, it won't matter for purposes of this example.

Skin temperature is 35C/95F, or 308K.

IR power radiated out of a person = (surface area) * (S-B constant) * (T^4)

If you run the numbers, that comes out around 800 watts. Over a day, that's 19 kw*hrs, or 16,000 Calories.

If backradiation didn't exist, all of that 16,000 Calories would have to fueled by the food people ate. Even more than that, since heat is also conducting away from them, but we'll just forget about conduction for this example. So if backradiation doesn't exist, a person would have to eat 16,000 Calories a day just to make up for the heat radiating away from them.

However, backradiation does exist. The backradiation from the environment is constantly radiating into each person, and each person absorbs that radiation and then radiates it back out. They're absorbing 14,000 Calories of backradiation each day, so they only have to eat 2,000 Calories to make up the balance.

Another example ...

Inside at 68F, you're comfortable.

Outside at 68F, in the shade (so no direct solar radiation), you'll start getting chilly.

Why? Inside, the walls and ceiling are radiating at 68F. Outside, half of your radiating environment is a colder sky, so you're getting much less backradiation.

 

[SSDD]

back radiation is a myth and unproven.

Anyone with an infrared spectrometer can point it at the sky and directly measure the backradiation. You're denying a directly measurable phenomenon. That makes you look crazy.

Are you saying that the instrument only measures energy moving towards it? Are you aware that the number you get on the instrument is the result of a mathematical function and not any directly measured energy? Are you really aware of anything.

When I have time I will explain what is actually being measured...suffice it to say that the supposed back radiation you are seeing on the instrument is the result of a detected voltage and the temperature of the instrument itself passed through an equation...there is no actual measurement of DLR.