a real question for all about ice cores

[ReinyDays]

1 is better than 2, but even 1 isn't up to my data collection standards.

Which band are you using for a proxy for temperature? ... here's the link for you ...

ETA: check out the "full disk" loops ... really cool if you're interested in weather ...

 

[ReinyDays]

My standard for accuracy is a college graduate in meteorology going out and reading a thermometer ... writing down what the thmawe

cat oinvasioah

STOP NPE arrrrrr

Back ... sorry ... cats get in my way on purpose ... so back to thermometer accuracy ... nearest WHOLE DEGREE CELSIUS ...

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

... albedo accuracy is more like ±10ºC ... but that's college science ...

 

[gfm7175]

Yes it is ... "forcing" and "force" are synonyms ...

No they aren't. I've already provided how The Church makes use of the term.

we measure more energy coming into the climate system than we measure leaving ...

Made up numbers in an attempt to legitimize The Faith.

therefore energy levels must be increasing in the climate system ...

What is "the climate system"? Earth has MANY different climates; there is no "the climate". Sounds like you're trying to set up the "magic blanket argument" that denies the Stefan Boltzmann Law.

and it follows temperatures must also increase,

Aka The Faith

but not necessarily ...

Now you're contradicting yourself.

you can verify this using data from your local weather station ... I have not found any station that didn't conform to NOAA's claim of global warming ...

Even 20,000 thermometers aren't enough, let alone discussing the location and time biases that are present. IOW, you are trying to tell me that ONE thermometer is enough to provide me with an accurate temperature measurement of anywhere within the entire State of Vermont (IOW, 1 thermometer per roughly 9,800 sq miles). That's ridiculous.........

The dispute is strictly whether man-kind is causing this rise in temperatures ... not that temperatures aren't 1ºC higher than they were 140 years ago ...

WRONG. The main dispute is that physics-deniers are asserting that Earth has somehow spontaneously increased in temperature without the presence of any additional thermal energy (denial of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the 0th Law of Thermodynamics, Planck's Law, and the entirety of black body science).

This is freshman physics ...

It is, but you deny said physics.

is it fair to say you've never taken a physics class? ... because your math is very very wrong ...

Your issue, apparently.

 

[ReinyDays]

... Stefan Boltzmann Law ...

Irradiance is proportional to temperature raised to the fourth power ... that means we have to add a large amount of carbon dioxide to raise temperatures a tiny bit ... and 1ºC over 140 years is a tiny increase ...

... and the more carbon dioxide we add to the atmosphere ... the less effect she'll have on temperatures ... as usual for the fourth power function ...

What value are you using for albedo? ...

 

[gfm7175]

Your first option is imaginary ... satellites don't measure temperature ... stop lying ...

THIS you have correct, and that's part of why his "satellite data" is not up to my standards.

I'm not taking temperatures readings from ice cores ...

Ergo, they say absolutely nothing about Earth's temperature. Glad that's settled.

I'm asking you why you think they're wrong? ... and yes, "one spot" is what we're using in Continuum mechanics ...

It's not that they're "wrong", it's that they don't measure Earth's temperature.

You still think we had satellites in the early 20th Century ... too funny ... Bubba didn't finish Middle School ...

I agree that magic satellites don't measure Earth's temperature either.

 

[Captain Caveman]

How do you get temperature readings from ice cores?

Clearly ice cores are very useful for finding the various gas concentrations of the past.

But, let's be serious, an ice core is a series of layers of ice and snow/ice/gas trapped in between. Thickness is the amount of snow/frost and the force of the ice on top compressing it.

How do you get a "global temperature reading" from one ice core from Antarctica???

Look into Paleoclimatology. It's determined from ice, rocks, and fossils.

 

[EMH]

. I'm asking you why you think they're wrong?

What is YOUR EVIDENCE of the ACCURACY of such "measures..."

Any TRACK RECORD ?

"imagery" from IR satellites is colored by TEMP...

A "thermometer" is "imagery" because the red liquid goes up, and you see color.... according to you...

 

[EMH]

It really is. An ice core is only one specific spot on Earth, not the whole Earth, as you correctly note below. It is also not a temperature measurement of any kind.

It can't magically provide a temperature measurement of Earth. That's all that really needs to be said.

It's "real data", but it's not accurate temperature measurements of Earth.

Even setting aside the issues of not being uniformly spaced nor simultaneously read by the same observer (IOW, location and time biases), there’s still WAYYYYY too few thermometers to even get a grasp on what Earth’s SURFACE temperature is, let alone what Earth’s temperature is. What do you mean, gfm7175? Well, think about this fact, assuming 20,000 thermometers scattered across Earth's surface:

Is ONE thermometer enough to accurately measure the temperature of anywhere within the entire State of Vermont?

No, you say?! Well, you’d be correct. So, if a thermometer to sq mile ratio of 1 thermometer per roughly 9,800 sq miles is NOT good enough for the State of Vermont, then why do you believe that the very same 1 thermometer per 9,800 sq mile ratio is good enough for Earth?

Good post.

Never forget their theory is that ATMOSPHERIC Co2 is WARMING the ATMOSPHERE and hence everything else.

The data said NOPE

and then they FUDGED IT...

 

[EMH]

Look into Paleoclimatology. It's determined from ice, rocks, and fossils.

You can get a "measurement" but its accuracy isn't proven or even demonstrated, it is just theoretical.

How do you explain sharp downward temp spikes that then correct quickly???

 

[gfm7175]

Good post.

Never forget their theory is that ATMOSPHERIC Co2 is WARMING the ATMOSPHERE and hence everything else.

The data said NOPE

and then they FUDGED IT...

I've noticed three particular sermons that the Church of Global Warming preaches in a recycled fashion over and over again, all of them denying physics in some way/shape/form. First, a definition of the religion itself.

CHURCH OF GLOBAL WARMING: A Marxist religion that asserts the inexplicable spontaneous increase in Earth's average global temperature despite unchanging solar output... IOW, Earth's equilibrium temperature simply increases without any additional energy. (This in and of itself is a denial of Planck's Law, Thermodynamics, and Black Body Science)

Now, here are the three forever-recycled physics-denying sermons of the Church of Global Warming:

(1) Greenhouse gases begin creating additional energy out of nothing, miraculously violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. This miraculously-created thermal energy increases the Earth's average global temperature in conjunction with the sun's constant output.

(2) Greenhouse gases act as insulation, like a blanket, cradling the Earth in global warming. This "blanket" is also a magic blanket in that it is totally transparent to incoming solar energy yet it "traps" some of Earth's "heat", preventing some of Earth's radiance from escaping into space. This causes Earth's temperature to increase in conjunction with the sun's constant output.

(3) The Earth, in equilibrium, radiates thermally into space exactly what it absorbs, without creating any additional energy out of nothing. However, greenhouse gases absorb that radiation and roughly half of that energy get "re-radiated" back down to Earth's surface in the form of magic bouncing photons, increasing its temperature.

#1 is an egregious violation of thermodynamics, and pointing that out to the warmizombie causes him to pivot to #2. #2 is an egregious violation of the Stefan Boltzmann Law, and pointing that out to him causes him to pivot to #3. #3 is an egregious violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and pointing that out to him causes him to pivot back to #1, starting the whole cycle over again.

 

[gfm7175]

Irradiance is proportional to temperature raised to the fourth power

Correct. Ergo, if "trapped heat" is occurring (it's not), then that would mean that Earth is radiating LESS, which (under that false scenario) would mean that Earth's temperature is DECREASING, not increasing.

... that means we have to add a large amount of carbon dioxide to raise temperatures a tiny bit ... and 1ºC over 140 years is a tiny increase ...
... and the more carbon dioxide we add to the atmosphere ... the less effect she'll have on temperatures ... as usual for the fourth power function ...

There is no 'carbon dioxide' value in the Stefan Boltzmann Law.

What value are you using for albedo? ...

There is no 'albedo' value in the Stefan Boltzmann Law.

 

[ReinyDays]

What is YOUR EVIDENCE of the ACCURACY of such "measures..."

Any TRACK RECORD ?

"imagery" from IR satellites is colored by TEMP...

A "thermometer" is "imagery" because the red liquid goes up, and you see color.... according to you...

Ah ... so your only standard is if the data matches your unique world view ... and you'll not be backing your claim of this data being wrong ... just like a liar ...

"Which band are you using for a proxy for temperature? ... here's the link for you ..."

 

[EMH]

Ah ... so your only standard is if the data matches your unique world view ... and you'll not be backing your claim of this data being wrong ... just like a liar ...

"Which band are you using for a proxy for temperature? ... here's the link for you ..."

Why was the original satellite and balloon data FUDGED in 2005???

Because it showed the TRUTH that adding Co2 to the atmosphere caused precisely NO WARMING

 

[EMH]

I've noticed three particular sermons that the Church of Global Warming preaches in a recycled fashion over and over again, all of them denying physics in some way/shape/form. First, a definition of the religion itself.

CHURCH OF GLOBAL WARMING: A Marxist religion that asserts the inexplicable spontaneous increase in Earth's average global temperature despite unchanging solar output... IOW, Earth's equilibrium temperature simply increases without any additional energy. (This in and of itself is a denial of Planck's Law, Thermodynamics, and Black Body Science)

Now, here are the three forever-recycled physics-denying sermons of the Church of Global Warming:

(1) Greenhouse gases begin creating additional energy out of nothing, miraculously violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. This miraculously-created thermal energy increases the Earth's average global temperature in conjunction with the sun's constant output.

(2) Greenhouse gases act as insulation, like a blanket, cradling the Earth in global warming. This "blanket" is also a magic blanket in that it is totally transparent to incoming solar energy yet it "traps" some of Earth's "heat", preventing some of Earth's radiance from escaping into space. This causes Earth's temperature to increase in conjunction with the sun's constant output.

(3) The Earth, in equilibrium, radiates thermally into space exactly what it absorbs, without creating any additional energy out of nothing. However, greenhouse gases absorb that radiation and roughly half of that energy get "re-radiated" back down to Earth's surface in the form of magic bouncing photons, increasing its temperature.

#1 is an egregious violation of thermodynamics, and pointing that out to the warmizombie causes him to pivot to #2. #2 is an egregious violation of the Stefan Boltzmann Law, and pointing that out to him causes him to pivot to #3. #3 is an egregious violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and pointing that out to him causes him to pivot back to #1, starting the whole cycle over again.

ALL GASSES absorb some part of EM spectrum.

O3 absorbs powerful UV

Co2 absorbs WEAK IR

and that's why increasing it to the atmosphere does NOTHING...

Please check the OP of the link below if you haven't already...

Since Co2 does nothing, what does cause Earth climate change?

The first part is understanding what is climate and what is weather. Climate is the parameters of Earth that allow certain ranges of weather. We don't get Cat 10 canes now, but we would if Earth had no ice. What are the parameters of climate that can change? Ocean levels Atmospheric...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Captain Caveman]

You can get a "measurement" but its accuracy isn't proven or even demonstrated, it is just theoretical.

How do you explain sharp downward temp spikes that then correct quickly???

Volcanic activity causing ash clouds on a large scale blocking sun light can be a cause temperature to drop. This can increase co2 at the same time as well.

Air bubbles trapped in amber are used to check co2 concentrations, which is quite accurate.

Crustaceans using co2 lowers the ppm, so much so, humans came to the rescue and increased it because concentration levels were getting perishability low. There's so much panic, but if levels got to 2,000 +, life will flourish and continue.

 

[ReinyDays]

Why was the original satellite and balloon data FUDGED in 2005???

Because it showed the TRUTH that adding Co2 to the atmosphere caused precisely NO WARMING

"Which band are you using for a proxy for temperature? ... here's the link for you ..."