Devastating difference between real science and climate "science"

[ReinyDays]

but we are talking about statistics and with statistics we can say anything we want, without fudging data …

But, changing a temperature reading from 1930 from 28F to 30F.....that's fudging data.

and if we're using computers to work this, then we have to consider Moore's Law ... claims posted five years ago used profoundly obsolete computers ...

And, more importantly, GIGO.

Thank you for answering your own question ... yes ... GIGO ... that's why statistics is considered non-rigid mathematics ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wow. 4 Joules per gram you say
So it would take 5.2 * 10 ^24th Joules to raise the oceans the 1 degree.
What does the lab work should about the 120 PPM additional CO2's ability to generate THAT much extra temperature/energy?

10^24 joules isn't all that much energy ... a fraction of even the smallest stars release every second ... and we have 50 years to raise the oceans temperature that 1ºC ... a tiny tiny increase in CO2 causes a tiny tiny increase in temperature ... tiny ... minuscule ... trivial ... parts per million ... just a little larger than the common sense of Democrats ...

Are you saying that by raising temperatures over a 50 year period that CO2 is also a perpetual heat generator as well? That, somehow, the imperceptible heat generated by CO2 50 years ago somehow compounded? Can you elaborate

 

[ReinyDays]

Are you saying that by raising temperatures over a 50 year period that CO2 is also a perpetual heat generator as well? That, somehow, the imperceptible heat generated by CO2 50 years ago somehow compounded? Can you elaborate

Well, I'd have to start with a full year's coursework in physics ... conserving energy is just one of many things that have to be automatic ... carbon dioxide doesn't generate heat, and for some very good reasons ... it would take a lot of time elaborating on this fact ... and check with your local community college to find out how expensive it would be ... best I can do is ask you to look at the equation in post #17 again and note it calls for heat flux ... perhaps re-phrase your question using that term and maybe we can get someplace ... does real science devastate climate science? ... it helps to understand real science, and a year of physics is just the start ...