Why do so many people deny climate change

[flacaltenn]

for FCT: that the field of climate science is immature bears no relation whatsoever to the technical qualifications of those who study it.
W/m^2 is a proper unit to describe incident or transient energy. If you'd care to show us the specific Trenberth text (ie, a quotation) where, as you claim, he uses the term incorrectly, I might change my mind. But for now I suspect he knows basic material like this at least as well as do you and his coworkers, reviewers and referees would not have allowed him to publish the sort of silly mistake you claim he has (and, of course, with malevolently conspiratorial incompetence)

You trying to redefine BASIC SCIENCE terms?? Watts or W/m2 IS NEVER "an energy" measurement. It's a Forcing Function, a POTENTIAL to do work, or the analogy to Voltage in a circuit.

Go retrieve the famous Trenberth ENERGY BUDGET and look for yourself..

To understand the "energy imbalance" of radiative heating of the Earth -- YOU DO need an energy budget.. TrenBerth didn't produce it. BECAUSE you need to account for ENERGY STORED in the oceans, and ENERGY inputs that are temporally variant over the seasons and sections of the earth..

Those massive numbers of JOULES "hiding somewhere in the ocean" ??? They are just Watt-seconds. Each of them represents 1 second of exposure to 1 Watt of incident POWER. When you deal with ENERGY UNITS -- it becomes important to consider and treat and TIME EXPOSURE to power fluxes.. A lot more difficult than a stupid Power budget..

By loosely interchanging these units --- a POOR scientist or scientist or engineer can miss a lot of truth..

 

[flacaltenn]

for FCT: that the field of climate science is immature bears no relation whatsoever to the technical qualifications of those who study it.
W/m^2 is a proper unit to describe incident or transient energy. If you'd care to show us the specific Trenberth text (ie, a quotation) where, as you claim, he uses the term incorrectly, I might change my mind. But for now I suspect he knows basic material like this at least as well as do you and his coworkers, reviewers and referees would not have allowed him to publish the sort of silly mistake you claim he has (and, of course, with malevolently conspiratorial incompetence)

The truth is that is simply doesn't matter because the time period is taken as a constant. As such, in budjet terms, 1W + 2W = 1J/s + 2J/s = (1J + 2J)/s which is the same as 1J + 2J with the time period assumed.

In the budjet balance of A=B, both sides have exactly the same time period and it cancels out, meaning it simply doesn't matter if it is done in watts or joules.

In economics, this is what is always done, because in econ, all data is time period dependent. Because it is always time period dependent, and the time period is always the same, it is just dropped. $/hr=$/hr is the same as $=$.

Watts = Watts is the same as J/s = J/s is the same as J=J. The same can be said about W/m^2=W/m^2. m^2 is the same and can be cancelled.

It is just shorthand. In mathematics, it is refered to as abuse of notation.

That someone thinks otherwise, that he's found something, simply makes it clear that he doesn't bother trying to figure out what the science is doing. Rather, he jumps tonthe conclusion that he had founf an error where no error exists. He just doesn't know whats going on.

Nope.. Pick another forum for your impersonation act..

 

[itfitzme]

for FCT: that the field of climate science is immature bears no relation whatsoever to the technical qualifications of those who study it.
W/m^2 is a proper unit to describe incident or transient energy. If you'd care to show us the specific Trenberth text (ie, a quotation) where, as you claim, he uses the term incorrectly, I might change my mind. But for now I suspect he knows basic material like this at least as well as do you and his coworkers, reviewers and referees would not have allowed him to publish the sort of silly mistake you claim he has (and, of course, with malevolently conspiratorial incompetence)

You trying to redefine BASIC SCIENCE terms?? W/m2 IS NEVER "an energy" measurement. It's a Forcing Function, a potential to do work, or the analogy to Voltage in a circuit.

Go retrieve the famous Trenberth ENERGY BUDGET and look for yourself..

To understand the "energy imbalance" of radiative heating of the Earth -- YOU DO need an energy budget.. TrenBerth didn't produce it. BECAUSE you need to account for ENERGY STORED in the oceans, and ENERGY inputs that are temporally variant over the seasons and sections of the earth..

Those massive numbers of JOULES "hiding somewhere in the ocean" ??? They are just Watt-seconds. Each of them represents 1 second of exposure to 1 Watt of incident POWER. When you deal with ENERGY UNITS -- it becomes important to consider and treat and TIME EXPOSURE to power fluxes.. A lot more difficult than a stupid Power budget..



By loosely interchanging these units --- a POOR scientist or scientist or engineer can miss a lot of truth..

Actually, no. It is done all the time in every field odf science. You just don't have the experience to know that you've found nothing. All you have found is commom practice that has no bearing on anything.

 

[bripat9643]

for FCT: that the field of climate science is immature bears no relation whatsoever to the technical qualifications of those who study it.
W/m^2 is a proper unit to describe incident or transient energy. If you'd care to show us the specific Trenberth text (ie, a quotation) where, as you claim, he uses the term incorrectly, I might change my mind. But for now I suspect he knows basic material like this at least as well as do you and his coworkers, reviewers and referees would not have allowed him to publish the sort of silly mistake you claim he has (and, of course, with malevolently conspiratorial incompetence)

The truth is that is simply doesn't matter because the time period is taken as a constant. As such, in budjet terms, 1W + 2W = 1J/s + 2J/s = (1J + 2J)/s which is the same as 1J + 2J with the time period assumed.

In the budjet balance of A=B, both sides have exactly the same time period and it cancels out, meaning it simply doesn't matter if it is done in watts or joules.

In economics, this is what is always done, because in econ, all data is time period dependent. Because it is always time period dependent, and the time period is always the same, it is just dropped. $/hr=$/hr is the same as $=$.

Watts = Watts is the same as J/s = J/s is the same as J=J. The same can be said about W/m^2=W/m^2. m^2 is the same and can be cancelled.

It is just shorthand. In mathematics, it is refered to as abuse of notation.

That someone thinks otherwise, that he's found something, simply makes it clear that he doesn't bother trying to figure out what the science is doing. Rather, he jumps tonthe conclusion that he had founf an error where no error exists. He just doesn't know whats going on.

It really doesn't matter because it's all made-up bullshit. Trenberth has almost no data before the mid 1990s. That means most of his chart is pure fantasy.

However, believing in fantasies is what the AGW con is all about.

 

[itfitzme]

for FCT: that the field of climate science is immature bears no relation whatsoever to the technical qualifications of those who study it.
W/m^2 is a proper unit to describe incident or transient energy. If you'd care to show us the specific Trenberth text (ie, a quotation) where, as you claim, he uses the term incorrectly, I might change my mind. But for now I suspect he knows basic material like this at least as well as do you and his coworkers, reviewers and referees would not have allowed him to publish the sort of silly mistake you claim he has (and, of course, with malevolently conspiratorial incompetence)

The truth is that is simply doesn't matter because the time period is taken as a constant. As such, in budjet terms, 1W + 2W = 1J/s + 2J/s = (1J + 2J)/s which is the same as 1J + 2J with the time period assumed.

In the budjet balance of A=B, both sides have exactly the same time period and it cancels out, meaning it simply doesn't matter if it is done in watts or joules.

In economics, this is what is always done, because in econ, all data is time period dependent. Because it is always time period dependent, and the time period is always the same, it is just dropped. $/hr=$/hr is the same as $=$.

Watts = Watts is the same as J/s = J/s is the same as J=J. The same can be said about W/m^2=W/m^2. m^2 is the same and can be cancelled.

It is just shorthand. In mathematics, it is refered to as abuse of notation.

That someone thinks otherwise, that he's found something, simply makes it clear that he doesn't bother trying to figure out what the science is doing. Rather, he jumps tonthe conclusion that he had founf an error where no error exists. He just doesn't know whats going on.

Nope.. Pick another forum for your impersonation act..

In other words, I have demonstrated how and why, shown the units, and shown how the calculations for a budget work. I've even given it a name "abuse of notation". That's pretty fin good, so you have to resort to ad hominum bullshit.

You have nothing, I'm right, and you know it.

 

[PMZ]

for FCT: that the field of climate science is immature bears no relation whatsoever to the technical qualifications of those who study it.
W/m^2 is a proper unit to describe incident or transient energy. If you'd care to show us the specific Trenberth text (ie, a quotation) where, as you claim, he uses the term incorrectly, I might change my mind. But for now I suspect he knows basic material like this at least as well as do you and his coworkers, reviewers and referees would not have allowed him to publish the sort of silly mistake you claim he has (and, of course, with malevolently conspiratorial incompetence)

You trying to redefine BASIC SCIENCE terms?? Watts or W/m2 IS NEVER "an energy" measurement. It's a Forcing Function, a POTENTIAL to do work, or the analogy to Voltage in a circuit.

Go retrieve the famous Trenberth ENERGY BUDGET and look for yourself..

To understand the "energy imbalance" of radiative heating of the Earth -- YOU DO need an energy budget.. TrenBerth didn't produce it. BECAUSE you need to account for ENERGY STORED in the oceans, and ENERGY inputs that are temporally variant over the seasons and sections of the earth..

Those massive numbers of JOULES "hiding somewhere in the ocean" ??? They are just Watt-seconds. Each of them represents 1 second of exposure to 1 Watt of incident POWER. When you deal with ENERGY UNITS -- it becomes important to consider and treat and TIME EXPOSURE to power fluxes.. A lot more difficult than a stupid Power budget..

By loosely interchanging these units --- a POOR scientist or scientist or engineer can miss a lot of truth..

''BECAUSE you need to account for ENERGY STORED in the oceans,''

Energy storage has no impact on the fact of AGW which depends only on energy in vs energy out.

Storage only matters in the transition time between puturbation and stability restored.

That's why the IPCC has always studied it.

 

[PMZ]

for FCT: that the field of climate science is immature bears no relation whatsoever to the technical qualifications of those who study it.
W/m^2 is a proper unit to describe incident or transient energy. If you'd care to show us the specific Trenberth text (ie, a quotation) where, as you claim, he uses the term incorrectly, I might change my mind. But for now I suspect he knows basic material like this at least as well as do you and his coworkers, reviewers and referees would not have allowed him to publish the sort of silly mistake you claim he has (and, of course, with malevolently conspiratorial incompetence)

The truth is that is simply doesn't matter because the time period is taken as a constant. As such, in budjet terms, 1W + 2W = 1J/s + 2J/s = (1J + 2J)/s which is the same as 1J + 2J with the time period assumed.

In the budjet balance of A=B, both sides have exactly the same time period and it cancels out, meaning it simply doesn't matter if it is done in watts or joules.

In economics, this is what is always done, because in econ, all data is time period dependent. Because it is always time period dependent, and the time period is always the same, it is just dropped. $/hr=$/hr is the same as $=$.

Watts = Watts is the same as J/s = J/s is the same as J=J. The same can be said about W/m^2=W/m^2. m^2 is the same and can be cancelled.

It is just shorthand. In mathematics, it is refered to as abuse of notation.

That someone thinks otherwise, that he's found something, simply makes it clear that he doesn't bother trying to figure out what the science is doing. Rather, he jumps tonthe conclusion that he had founf an error where no error exists. He just doesn't know whats going on.

It really doesn't matter because it's all made-up bullshit. Trenberth has almost no data before the mid 1990s. That means most of his chart is pure fantasy.

However, believing in fantasies is what the AGW con is all about.

You're the one with zero on the scoreboard. No data, no theories, no science at all. Only slavish devotion to corrupt self serving politics.

 

[PMZ]

for FCT: that the field of climate science is immature bears no relation whatsoever to the technical qualifications of those who study it.
W/m^2 is a proper unit to describe incident or transient energy. If you'd care to show us the specific Trenberth text (ie, a quotation) where, as you claim, he uses the term incorrectly, I might change my mind. But for now I suspect he knows basic material like this at least as well as do you and his coworkers, reviewers and referees would not have allowed him to publish the sort of silly mistake you claim he has (and, of course, with malevolently conspiratorial incompetence)

The truth is that is simply doesn't matter because the time period is taken as a constant. As such, in budjet terms, 1W + 2W = 1J/s + 2J/s = (1J + 2J)/s which is the same as 1J + 2J with the time period assumed.

In the budjet balance of A=B, both sides have exactly the same time period and it cancels out, meaning it simply doesn't matter if it is done in watts or joules.

In economics, this is what is always done, because in econ, all data is time period dependent. Because it is always time period dependent, and the time period is always the same, it is just dropped. $/hr=$/hr is the same as $=$.

Watts = Watts is the same as J/s = J/s is the same as J=J. The same can be said about W/m^2=W/m^2. m^2 is the same and can be cancelled.

It is just shorthand. In mathematics, it is refered to as abuse of notation.

That someone thinks otherwise, that he's found something, simply makes it clear that he doesn't bother trying to figure out what the science is doing. Rather, he jumps tonthe conclusion that he had founf an error where no error exists. He just doesn't know whats going on.

Nope.. Pick another forum for your impersonation act..

Clearly denialists have no science to support what they wish was true.

This is the desperate result. Trying to build a case on trivia.

I don't see a chance in hell of you getting away with it here.

 

[flacaltenn]

The truth is that is simply doesn't matter because the time period is taken as a constant. As such, in budjet terms, 1W + 2W = 1J/s + 2J/s = (1J + 2J)/s which is the same as 1J + 2J with the time period assumed.

In the budjet balance of A=B, both sides have exactly the same time period and it cancels out, meaning it simply doesn't matter if it is done in watts or joules.

In economics, this is what is always done, because in econ, all data is time period dependent. Because it is always time period dependent, and the time period is always the same, it is just dropped. $/hr=$/hr is the same as $=$.

Watts = Watts is the same as J/s = J/s is the same as J=J. The same can be said about W/m^2=W/m^2. m^2 is the same and can be cancelled.

It is just shorthand. In mathematics, it is refered to as abuse of notation.

That someone thinks otherwise, that he's found something, simply makes it clear that he doesn't bother trying to figure out what the science is doing. Rather, he jumps tonthe conclusion that he had founf an error where no error exists. He just doesn't know whats going on.

Nope.. Pick another forum for your impersonation act..

In other words, I have demonstrated how and why, shown the units, and shown how the calculations for a budget work. I've even given it a name "abuse of notation". That's pretty fin good, so you have to resort to ad hominum bullshit.

You have nothing, I'm right, and you know it.

Nope.. Please continue to destroy your impersonation act...

 

[PMZ]

Nope.. Pick another forum for your impersonation act..

In other words, I have demonstrated how and why, shown the units, and shown how the calculations for a budget work. I've even given it a name "abuse of notation". That's pretty fin good, so you have to resort to ad hominum bullshit.

You have nothing, I'm right, and you know it.

Nope.. Please continue to destroy your impersonation act...

Compelling evidence of the conservative creed. You can wish things into reality.

I suppose that's a pretty easy sell to stupid people.

 

[itfitzme]

Nope.. Pick another forum for your impersonation act..

In other words, I have demonstrated how and why, shown the units, and shown how the calculations for a budget work. I've even given it a name "abuse of notation". That's pretty fin good, so you have to resort to ad hominum bullshit.

You have nothing, I'm right, and you know it.

Nope.. Please continue to destroy your impersonation act...

Good come back.

Care to try something more scientific?

 

[bripat9643]

The truth is that is simply doesn't matter because the time period is taken as a constant. As such, in budjet terms, 1W + 2W = 1J/s + 2J/s = (1J + 2J)/s which is the same as 1J + 2J with the time period assumed.

In the budjet balance of A=B, both sides have exactly the same time period and it cancels out, meaning it simply doesn't matter if it is done in watts or joules.

In economics, this is what is always done, because in econ, all data is time period dependent. Because it is always time period dependent, and the time period is always the same, it is just dropped. $/hr=$/hr is the same as $=$.

Watts = Watts is the same as J/s = J/s is the same as J=J. The same can be said about W/m^2=W/m^2. m^2 is the same and can be cancelled.

It is just shorthand. In mathematics, it is refered to as abuse of notation.

That someone thinks otherwise, that he's found something, simply makes it clear that he doesn't bother trying to figure out what the science is doing. Rather, he jumps tonthe conclusion that he had founf an error where no error exists. He just doesn't know whats going on.

It really doesn't matter because it's all made-up bullshit. Trenberth has almost no data before the mid 1990s. That means most of his chart is pure fantasy.

However, believing in fantasies is what the AGW con is all about.

You're the one with zero on the scoreboard. No data, no theories, no science at all. Only slavish devotion to corrupt self serving politics.

Only a true scientific ignoramus would believe that made up data is better than no data.

Here's my theory: The warmist cult members are all a bunch of communists who latched onto the AGW theory as a means of justifying mass plunder and socialist slavery.

 

[itfitzme]

for FCT: that the field of climate science is immature bears no relation whatsoever to the technical qualifications of those who study it.
W/m^2 is a proper unit to describe incident or transient energy. If you'd care to show us the specific Trenberth text (ie, a quotation) where, as you claim, he uses the term incorrectly, I might change my mind. But for now I suspect he knows basic material like this at least as well as do you and his coworkers, reviewers and referees would not have allowed him to publish the sort of silly mistake you claim he has (and, of course, with malevolently conspiratorial incompetence)

The truth is that is simply doesn't matter because the time period is taken as a constant. As such, in budjet terms, 1W + 2W = 1J/s + 2J/s = (1J + 2J)/s which is the same as 1J + 2J with the time period assumed.

In the budjet balance of A=B, both sides have exactly the same time period and it cancels out, meaning it simply doesn't matter if it is done in watts or joules.

In economics, this is what is always done, because in econ, all data is time period dependent. Because it is always time period dependent, and the time period is always the same, it is just dropped. $/hr=$/hr is the same as $=$.

Watts = Watts is the same as J/s = J/s is the same as J=J. The same can be said about W/m^2=W/m^2. m^2 is the same and can be cancelled.

It is just shorthand. In mathematics, it is refered to as abuse of notation.

That someone thinks otherwise, that he's found something, simply makes it clear that he doesn't bother trying to figure out what the science is doing. Rather, he jumps tonthe conclusion that he had founf an error where no error exists. He just doesn't know whats going on.

It really doesn't matter because it's all made-up bullshit. Trenberth has almost no data before the mid 1990s. That means most of his chart is pure fantasy.

However, believing in fantasies is what the AGW con is all about.

Oh, so when your wrong, it suddenly doesn't matter.

Good one. You should publish a scientific paper with "It doesn't matter...."

 

[itfitzme]

It really doesn't matter because it's all made-up bullshit. Trenberth has almost no data before the mid 1990s. That means most of his chart is pure fantasy.

However, believing in fantasies is what the AGW con is all about.

You're the one with zero on the scoreboard. No data, no theories, no science at all. Only slavish devotion to corrupt self serving politics.

Only a true scientific ignoramus would believe that made up data is better than no data.

Here's my theory: The warmist cult members are all a bunch of communists who latched onto the AGW theory as a means of justifying mass plunder and socialist slavery.

Sure, now were down to the "conspiracy" and "It's all made up."

Sure... The CPI is made up, the unemployment numbers are made up. The GDP is made up. The temperature readings are made up. It's all made up.

You really need to take your medication.

 

[bripat9643]

The truth is that is simply doesn't matter because the time period is taken as a constant. As such, in budjet terms, 1W + 2W = 1J/s + 2J/s = (1J + 2J)/s which is the same as 1J + 2J with the time period assumed.

In the budjet balance of A=B, both sides have exactly the same time period and it cancels out, meaning it simply doesn't matter if it is done in watts or joules.

In economics, this is what is always done, because in econ, all data is time period dependent. Because it is always time period dependent, and the time period is always the same, it is just dropped. $/hr=$/hr is the same as $=$.

Watts = Watts is the same as J/s = J/s is the same as J=J. The same can be said about W/m^2=W/m^2. m^2 is the same and can be cancelled.

It is just shorthand. In mathematics, it is refered to as abuse of notation.

That someone thinks otherwise, that he's found something, simply makes it clear that he doesn't bother trying to figure out what the science is doing. Rather, he jumps tonthe conclusion that he had founf an error where no error exists. He just doesn't know whats going on.

It really doesn't matter because it's all made-up bullshit. Trenberth has almost no data before the mid 1990s. That means most of his chart is pure fantasy.

However, believing in fantasies is what the AGW con is all about.

Oh, so when your wrong, it suddenly doesn't matter.

Good one. You should publish a scientific paper with "It doesn't matter...."

Prove I'm wrong, idiot.

 

[itfitzme]

It really doesn't matter because it's all made-up bullshit. Trenberth has almost no data before the mid 1990s. That means most of his chart is pure fantasy.

However, believing in fantasies is what the AGW con is all about.

Oh, so when your wrong, it suddenly doesn't matter.

Good one. You should publish a scientific paper with "It doesn't matter...."

Prove I'm wrong, idiot.

Your wrong, idiot. Prove your not.

 

[bripat9643]

You're the one with zero on the scoreboard. No data, no theories, no science at all. Only slavish devotion to corrupt self serving politics.

Only a true scientific ignoramus would believe that made up data is better than no data.

Here's my theory: The warmist cult members are all a bunch of communists who latched onto the AGW theory as a means of justifying mass plunder and socialist slavery.

Sure, now were down to the "conspiracy" and "It's all made up."

Sure... The CPI is made up, the unemployment numbers are made up. The GDP is made up. The temperature readings are made up. It's all made up.

You really need to take your medication.

The temperature numbers are made up. The global warming magicians have been caught red-handed numerous times doing exactly that.

A yapping physcho Chihuahua like you is telling me to take my medicine?

That's a real hoot.

BTW, I didn't say it was a conspiracy. I said that a bunch of servile statist toadies, all with the same agenda, discovered a means to impose that agenda on the rest of us.

 

[itfitzme]

Only a true scientific ignoramus would believe that made up data is better than no data.

Here's my theory: The warmist cult members are all a bunch of communists who latched onto the AGW theory as a means of justifying mass plunder and socialist slavery.

Sure, now were down to the "conspiracy" and "It's all made up."

Sure... The CPI is made up, the unemployment numbers are made up. The GDP is made up. The temperature readings are made up. It's all made up.

You really need to take your medication.

The temperature numbers are made up. The global warming magicians have been caught red-handed numerous times doing exactly that.

Your just demonstrating that your an uneducated moron. No such thing has happened except in your own mind. AWG has been carefully examined by a staunch denier and shown to be factual. Just saying "it's all a lie" doesn't make it so.

Showing that posting a map of the Northern Elephant Seal is bullshit given that the Southern Elephant Seal is used to do deep ocean measures demonstrated you to be a bullshitter.

Proof done.

 

[bripat9643]

Oh, so when your wrong, it suddenly doesn't matter.

Good one. You should publish a scientific paper with "It doesn't matter...."

Prove I'm wrong, idiot.

Your wrong, idiot. Prove your not.

That's the quality of proof we expect from warmist brown-shirts like you.

Those making the claim need to provide the proof. That's how science works. I'm shocked that someone so scientifically literate doesn't know that.

 

[PMZ]

It really doesn't matter because it's all made-up bullshit. Trenberth has almost no data before the mid 1990s. That means most of his chart is pure fantasy.

However, believing in fantasies is what the AGW con is all about.

You're the one with zero on the scoreboard. No data, no theories, no science at all. Only slavish devotion to corrupt self serving politics.

Only a true scientific ignoramus would believe that made up data is better than no data.

Here's my theory: The warmist cult members are all a bunch of communists who latched onto the AGW theory as a means of justifying mass plunder and socialist slavery.

There is only one way to discredit IPCC data. Produce better data with a scientific explanation as to why it's more credible.

You have nothing. No exaggeration, nothing. You're parroting what people who profit from the status quo instructed you to say. You fell for their line ignoring the obvious lack of any evidence because you wanted it to be true.

Realists don't fall for crap like that.