Global Warmers Stopped by Arctic Ice

[Lewdog]

I just wanted to put this here for all those that deny Global Warming and man-made climate change.

Physicist explaining climate change to a denier on TV is grim viewing

Earth's hottest month on record was July 2016: NASA

For those too lazy to watch the video in the link here is a clip and a full video:





And for those wondering what Brian Cox's credentials are:

Brian Cox - Biography, Facts and Pictures

He used a chart that is based on falsified data, so that's a non starter, and regardless of his professional accomplishments, which are significant, his "evidence" for AGW are not empirically based. They are based on falsified data and correlation. In other words he's making a fundamental error in science.

I just wanted to put this here for all those that deny Global Warming and man-made climate change.

Physicist explaining climate change to a denier on TV is grim viewing

Earth's hottest month on record was July 2016: NASA

For those too lazy to watch the video in the link here is a clip and a full video:





And for those wondering what Brian Cox's credentials are:

Brian Cox - Biography, Facts and Pictures

looks like he was told by the other dude quite well. No empirical evidence. He had nice fudged charts which is not empirical. you should all learn the definition of the word and come back when you can find some.

You guys can't be serious? How can you possibly deny something that is believed to be true by a VAST majority of the most well educated scientist in the world? We are emitting CO2 in record numbers while continuing to decrease the amount of trees on our planet that clean the CO2 out of the air and provide us with clean oxygen.

I mean it isn't even close when it comes ot the number of scientist that believe in global warming. Most people attribute it to 97% which is rated mostly true by Politfact: None

...and the best argument you can come up with... is they are using falsified data, from NASA and GISS? I'd REALLY like to know how and why you think that data is falsified.

Ummmm, because we can prove that the data is falsified would be my guess. Here is just one Federal Lab that has been shut down due to data falsification. There are more to come.


USGS finds data fraud, closes chemistry lab
Misconduct has led to delays and 1 retraction in environmental quality measurements reports


More than $100M worth of research may be tainted by govt lab misconduct - Retraction Watch


And then we have this....

NASA Exposed In ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud
Published on November 24, 2015


"From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”

NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud - Principia Scientific International

Yeah that makes sense... so top scientist even to this day are quoting data that was "proven" to falsified? REALLY? Do you REALLY think top scientist would ruin their own reputation publicly using data..TODAY, in 2016, if it was proven in 2015 that the data was falsified and not correct? REALLY? You have to be joking right? You can't possibly be serious?

You are engaging in a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Authority". I suggest you look it up. Whenever that is your sole argument you are losing. Just sayin...

How is it a logical fallacy to use common sense? So what's your expertise on climate change? What you've read on forums? Do you have a PH D in any kind of science field? Have you done any type of field research? I mean seriously... you are saying you know more than 97% of the top scientist in the world? You are saying that highly educated individuals in their field of study would use scientific data that you say has been positively disproved for over year?

 

[Lewdog]

Westwall, Cryosphere Today hasn't updated their maps for months, due to a sensor failure in the satellite they used.

So, you looked at that map that showed most of the arctic frozen, maybe an early June type situation, and you said "yep, that's what the arctic looks like in Mid-August!". Anybody with basic understanding of climate science would know that Hudson Bay shouldn't be frozen solid in Mid-August. Even if the date on it was totally wrong, you should have known better.

Here's what the arctic looks like now.

We have? Here is what the Arctic looks like TODAY.. They are hugging the coastline because they can't leave the fucking shoreline you boob. In other words they are following in the footsteps of the sailors who were doing the same type of exploration work in the late 1800's. Wowee kazowy. It's over 120 years and they can do no better than a sail boat from way back then.

Let us know when you have something new and original.

I can already see it is a waste of time to talk to him/her about this topic. Just like the gentleman in the video I posted, he/she is set in their ways and isn't going to let a little thing called science to prove them wrong.

 

[westwall]

He used a chart that is based on falsified data, so that's a non starter, and regardless of his professional accomplishments, which are significant, his "evidence" for AGW are not empirically based. They are based on falsified data and correlation. In other words he's making a fundamental error in science.

looks like he was told by the other dude quite well. No empirical evidence. He had nice fudged charts which is not empirical. you should all learn the definition of the word and come back when you can find some.

You guys can't be serious? How can you possibly deny something that is believed to be true by a VAST majority of the most well educated scientist in the world? We are emitting CO2 in record numbers while continuing to decrease the amount of trees on our planet that clean the CO2 out of the air and provide us with clean oxygen.

I mean it isn't even close when it comes ot the number of scientist that believe in global warming. Most people attribute it to 97% which is rated mostly true by Politfact: None

...and the best argument you can come up with... is they are using falsified data, from NASA and GISS? I'd REALLY like to know how and why you think that data is falsified.

Ummmm, because we can prove that the data is falsified would be my guess. Here is just one Federal Lab that has been shut down due to data falsification. There are more to come.


USGS finds data fraud, closes chemistry lab
Misconduct has led to delays and 1 retraction in environmental quality measurements reports


More than $100M worth of research may be tainted by govt lab misconduct - Retraction Watch


And then we have this....

NASA Exposed In ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud
Published on November 24, 2015


"From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”

NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud - Principia Scientific International

Yeah that makes sense... so top scientist even to this day are quoting data that was "proven" to falsified? REALLY? Do you REALLY think top scientist would ruin their own reputation publicly using data..TODAY, in 2016, if it was proven in 2015 that the data was falsified and not correct? REALLY? You have to be joking right? You can't possibly be serious?

You are engaging in a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Authority". I suggest you look it up. Whenever that is your sole argument you are losing. Just sayin...

How is it a logical fallacy to use common sense? So what's your expertise on climate change? What you've read on forums? Do you have a PH D in any kind of science field? Have you done any type of field research? I mean seriously... you are saying you know more than 97% of the top scientist in the world? You are saying that highly educated individuals in their field of study would use scientific data that you say has been positively disproved for over year?

Because anytime you get personal benefit from your position, as every one of those scientists you quote, do, they are no longer non biased. Thus their opinions, for that is what they are, no longer are pertinent. That's why. Like I said, look up logical fallacy's and then look up the scientific method so that you can understand how these guys violate that methodology all of the time. Bad science is bad science, no matter who is doing it.

 

[Lewdog]

You guys can't be serious? How can you possibly deny something that is believed to be true by a VAST majority of the most well educated scientist in the world? We are emitting CO2 in record numbers while continuing to decrease the amount of trees on our planet that clean the CO2 out of the air and provide us with clean oxygen.

I mean it isn't even close when it comes ot the number of scientist that believe in global warming. Most people attribute it to 97% which is rated mostly true by Politfact: None

...and the best argument you can come up with... is they are using falsified data, from NASA and GISS? I'd REALLY like to know how and why you think that data is falsified.

Ummmm, because we can prove that the data is falsified would be my guess. Here is just one Federal Lab that has been shut down due to data falsification. There are more to come.


USGS finds data fraud, closes chemistry lab
Misconduct has led to delays and 1 retraction in environmental quality measurements reports


More than $100M worth of research may be tainted by govt lab misconduct - Retraction Watch


And then we have this....

NASA Exposed In ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud
Published on November 24, 2015


"From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”

NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud - Principia Scientific International

Yeah that makes sense... so top scientist even to this day are quoting data that was "proven" to falsified? REALLY? Do you REALLY think top scientist would ruin their own reputation publicly using data..TODAY, in 2016, if it was proven in 2015 that the data was falsified and not correct? REALLY? You have to be joking right? You can't possibly be serious?

You are engaging in a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Authority". I suggest you look it up. Whenever that is your sole argument you are losing. Just sayin...

How is it a logical fallacy to use common sense? So what's your expertise on climate change? What you've read on forums? Do you have a PH D in any kind of science field? Have you done any type of field research? I mean seriously... you are saying you know more than 97% of the top scientist in the world? You are saying that highly educated individuals in their field of study would use scientific data that you say has been positively disproved for over year?

Because anytime you get personal benefit from your position, as every one of those scientists you quote, do, they are no longer non biased. Thus their opinions, for that is what they are, no longer are pertinent. That's why. Like I said, look up logical fallacy's and then look up the scientific method so that you can understand how these guys violate that methodology all of the time. Bad science is bad science, no matter who is doing it.

You know that makes no sense correct? You have to have a reason to back up your personal opinions and bias. Now on the other hand, for you to discredit 97% of the scientific community based on your beliefs, which you have little to no factual backing, that... that isn't a fallacy, it's just a bad opinion.

 

[westwall]

Ummmm, because we can prove that the data is falsified would be my guess. Here is just one Federal Lab that has been shut down due to data falsification. There are more to come.


USGS finds data fraud, closes chemistry lab
Misconduct has led to delays and 1 retraction in environmental quality measurements reports


More than $100M worth of research may be tainted by govt lab misconduct - Retraction Watch


And then we have this....

NASA Exposed In ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud
Published on November 24, 2015


"From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”

NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud - Principia Scientific International

Yeah that makes sense... so top scientist even to this day are quoting data that was "proven" to falsified? REALLY? Do you REALLY think top scientist would ruin their own reputation publicly using data..TODAY, in 2016, if it was proven in 2015 that the data was falsified and not correct? REALLY? You have to be joking right? You can't possibly be serious?

You are engaging in a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Authority". I suggest you look it up. Whenever that is your sole argument you are losing. Just sayin...

How is it a logical fallacy to use common sense? So what's your expertise on climate change? What you've read on forums? Do you have a PH D in any kind of science field? Have you done any type of field research? I mean seriously... you are saying you know more than 97% of the top scientist in the world? You are saying that highly educated individuals in their field of study would use scientific data that you say has been positively disproved for over year?

Because anytime you get personal benefit from your position, as every one of those scientists you quote, do, they are no longer non biased. Thus their opinions, for that is what they are, no longer are pertinent. That's why. Like I said, look up logical fallacy's and then look up the scientific method so that you can understand how these guys violate that methodology all of the time. Bad science is bad science, no matter who is doing it.

You know that makes no sense correct? You have to have a reason to back up your personal opinions and bias. Now on the other hand, for you to discredit 97% of the scientific community based on your beliefs, which you have little to no factual backing, that... that isn't a fallacy, it's just a bad opinion.

Dude. You just described AGW "science" to a "T"! Thanks for the laugh!

 

[Old Rocks]

Northabout got through the ice in the Laptev Sea, and is now moving fast.

Tracking - The Polar Ocean Challenge

How'd they do it? A big Arctic cyclone blew the ice away from shore. They're not completely out of ice-free waters, but they will be in a day or two. After that, it's ice-free the rest of the way around the north pole.

What does that mean? It means the deniers have failed spectacularly with this thread.

We have? Here is what the Arctic looks like TODAY.. They are hugging the coastline because they can't leave the fucking shoreline you boob. In other words they are following in the footsteps of the sailors who were doing the same type of exploration work in the late 1800's. Wowee kazowy. It's over 120 years and they can do no better than a sail boat from way back then.

Let us know when you have something new and original.

Goddamn, you senile old fool, that is from months ago. The Northwest Passage is completely open. The Northeast Passage is almost open.

 

[westwall]

Northabout got through the ice in the Laptev Sea, and is now moving fast.

Tracking - The Polar Ocean Challenge

How'd they do it? A big Arctic cyclone blew the ice away from shore. They're not completely out of ice-free waters, but they will be in a day or two. After that, it's ice-free the rest of the way around the north pole.

What does that mean? It means the deniers have failed spectacularly with this thread.

We have? Here is what the Arctic looks like TODAY.. They are hugging the coastline because they can't leave the fucking shoreline you boob. In other words they are following in the footsteps of the sailors who were doing the same type of exploration work in the late 1800's. Wowee kazowy. It's over 120 years and they can do no better than a sail boat from way back then.

Let us know when you have something new and original.

Goddamn, you senile old fool, that is from months ago. The Northwest Passage is completely open. The Northeast Passage is almost open.

Look at the date doofus. It's from YESTERDAY!

 

[Old Rocks]

He used a chart that is based on falsified data, so that's a non starter, and regardless of his professional accomplishments, which are significant, his "evidence" for AGW are not empirically based. They are based on falsified data and correlation. In other words he's making a fundamental error in science.

looks like he was told by the other dude quite well. No empirical evidence. He had nice fudged charts which is not empirical. you should all learn the definition of the word and come back when you can find some.

You guys can't be serious? How can you possibly deny something that is believed to be true by a VAST majority of the most well educated scientist in the world? We are emitting CO2 in record numbers while continuing to decrease the amount of trees on our planet that clean the CO2 out of the air and provide us with clean oxygen.

I mean it isn't even close when it comes ot the number of scientist that believe in global warming. Most people attribute it to 97% which is rated mostly true by Politfact: None

...and the best argument you can come up with... is they are using falsified data, from NASA and GISS? I'd REALLY like to know how and why you think that data is falsified.

Ummmm, because we can prove that the data is falsified would be my guess. Here is just one Federal Lab that has been shut down due to data falsification. There are more to come.


USGS finds data fraud, closes chemistry lab
Misconduct has led to delays and 1 retraction in environmental quality measurements reports


More than $100M worth of research may be tainted by govt lab misconduct - Retraction Watch


And then we have this....

NASA Exposed In ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud
Published on November 24, 2015


"From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”

NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud - Principia Scientific International

Yeah that makes sense... so top scientist even to this day are quoting data that was "proven" to falsified? REALLY? Do you REALLY think top scientist would ruin their own reputation publicly using data..TODAY, in 2016, if it was proven in 2015 that the data was falsified and not correct? REALLY? You have to be joking right? You can't possibly be serious?

You are engaging in a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Authority". I suggest you look it up. Whenever that is your sole argument you are losing. Just sayin...

How is it a logical fallacy to use common sense? So what's your expertise on climate change? What you've read on forums? Do you have a PH D in any kind of science field? Have you done any type of field research? I mean seriously... you are saying you know more than 97% of the top scientist in the world? You are saying that highly educated individuals in their field of study would use scientific data that you say has been positively disproved for over year?

Mr. Westwall claims a Phd in geology. And goes on to state that almost everybody in the AGU and GSA are frauds and liars. He has linked to many articles claiming that they proved AGW is a fraud, and when the article is read, one finds just the opposite. He constantly denigrates scientists and people that link posts to real scientists. You can decide for yourself as to the validity of his claims.,

 

[Old Rocks]

Northabout got through the ice in the Laptev Sea, and is now moving fast.

Tracking - The Polar Ocean Challenge

How'd they do it? A big Arctic cyclone blew the ice away from shore. They're not completely out of ice-free waters, but they will be in a day or two. After that, it's ice-free the rest of the way around the north pole.

What does that mean? It means the deniers have failed spectacularly with this thread.

We have? Here is what the Arctic looks like TODAY.. They are hugging the coastline because they can't leave the fucking shoreline you boob. In other words they are following in the footsteps of the sailors who were doing the same type of exploration work in the late 1800's. Wowee kazowy. It's over 120 years and they can do no better than a sail boat from way back then.

Let us know when you have something new and original.

Goddamn, you senile old fool, that is from months ago. The Northwest Passage is completely open. The Northeast Passage is almost open.

Look at the date doofus. It's from YESTERDAY!

LOL. Mr. Westwall, you are getting senile. Right above that image is this message;

Special Sensor Microwave Imager and Sounder (SSMIS) on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F-17 satellite that provides passive microwave brightness temperatures (and derived Arctic and Antarctic sea ice products) has been providing spurious data since beginning of April. Working on resolving problem or replacing this data source.

So that is from April. Do you ever bother to read anything before you post? LOL

 

[flacaltenn]

GREENHOUSE GAS THEORY DISCREDITED BY 'COOLANT' CARBON DIOXIDE >> Four Winds 10 - Truth Winds

"Nahle, from the Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon in Monterrey, N. L., Mexico, has worked professionally as a scientist for over 40 years. His findings are set to add more fuel to the fire in the vigorous debate over the validity of a cornerstone of the science of environmental activism.

In his new paper, ‘Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands’ the Mexican biologist turned climate researcher proves that in nature, CO2 and water vapor mix together to decrease infrared radiation emissions/absorptions in the air. This is the opposite of what conventional climatology has been saying for years."

Sorry man. This guy couldn't calculate his own worthless skin area. His "paper" is a reply to the criticisms of his "first paper". Neither actually got published as far as I can tell. And this cabal of "slayers" aren't ever gonna get out of the Pee Wee League with gems like.

Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps

Now we address the IPCC’s biggest mistake. They started off with a flawed number, and then have to invent lots of other unreal processes and mechanisms to make the real Earth’s average temperature coincide with their numbers.

Professor Nasif Nahle points out that error in IPCC models:

“It’s quite simple. The flux of power on the top of the atmosphere is 1368 W/m^2; however, they [IPCC] say it is 341 W/m^2.”

Without an atmosphere, the Earth would be receiving a flux of 1368 W/m^2 of solar power (394K under the zenith facing the Sun). With the atmosphere, it receives and absorbs 718 W/m^2 (335K) on its surface.

True -- at top of atmos the Solar power is more like 1360W/m2. And the SURFACE flux is 718W/m2. But the idiot is missing the point that the 718W/m2 exists for about 1 minute at high noon at any lattitudinal position. Since the flat area at TOAtmos "wraps around" and MOVES with the earth's rotation -- the DAILY AVERAGE (annualized) insolation is more in the range 320W/m2..

There is NOTHING wrong with these numbers. He just doesn't understand the concept of an annualized "daily average" solar insolation number. He's missing a lot and OBVIOUSLY MIGHT have an advanced degree, but he's got no mentors to fix his basic mistakes.

As for CO2 being a COOLANT. That term is used very loosely. Does not mean that CO2 has no heat capacity or ability to radiate IR in all directions proportional to it's heat energy. His wild ass theory states that the "ATMOS cools the earth during the day and warms it at night". Which is very sloppy. Since the Earth is shedding heat thru atmos all day/night long and there is NO WARMING going on at night at all.

Don't bet the farm on finding hope on the Internet. If you can't convert Centigrade to Fahrenheit --- I wouldn't be tackling what ANYONE says to "disprove" the GH theory..

 

[jc456]

GREENHOUSE GAS THEORY DISCREDITED BY 'COOLANT' CARBON DIOXIDE >> Four Winds 10 - Truth Winds

"Nahle, from the Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon in Monterrey, N. L., Mexico, has worked professionally as a scientist for over 40 years. His findings are set to add more fuel to the fire in the vigorous debate over the validity of a cornerstone of the science of environmental activism.

In his new paper, ‘Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands’ the Mexican biologist turned climate researcher proves that in nature, CO2 and water vapor mix together to decrease infrared radiation emissions/absorptions in the air. This is the opposite of what conventional climatology has been saying for years."

Sorry man. This guy couldn't calculate his own worthless skin area. His "paper" is a reply to the criticisms of his "first paper". Neither actually got published as far as I can tell. And this cabal of "slayers" aren't ever gonna get out of the Pee Wee League with gems like.

Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps

Now we address the IPCC’s biggest mistake. They started off with a flawed number, and then have to invent lots of other unreal processes and mechanisms to make the real Earth’s average temperature coincide with their numbers.

Professor Nasif Nahle points out that error in IPCC models:

“It’s quite simple. The flux of power on the top of the atmosphere is 1368 W/m^2; however, they [IPCC] say it is 341 W/m^2.”

Without an atmosphere, the Earth would be receiving a flux of 1368 W/m^2 of solar power (394K under the zenith facing the Sun). With the atmosphere, it receives and absorbs 718 W/m^2 (335K) on its surface.

True -- at top of atmos the Solar power is more like 1360W/m2. And the SURFACE flux is 718W/m2. But the idiot is missing the point that the 718W/m2 exists for about 1 minute at high noon at any lattitudinal position. Since the flat area at TOAtmos "wraps around" and MOVES with the earth's rotation -- the DAILY AVERAGE (annualized) insolation is more in the range 320W/m2..

There is NOTHING wrong with these numbers. He just doesn't understand the concept of an annualized "daily average" solar insolation number. He's missing a lot and OBVIOUSLY MIGHT have an advanced degree, but he's got no mentors to fix his basic mistakes.

As for CO2 being a COOLANT. That term is used very loosely. Does not mean that CO2 has no heat capacity or ability to radiate IR in all directions proportional to it's heat energy. His wild ass theory states that the "ATMOS cools the earth during the day and warms it at night". Which is very sloppy. Since the Earth is shedding heat thru atmos all day/night long and there is NO WARMING going on at night at all.

Don't bet the farm on finding hope on the Internet. If you can't convert Centigrade to Fahrenheit --- I wouldn't be tackling what ANYONE says to "disprove" the GH theory..

You sound like a warmer a lot now! You know more than a scientist

 

[flacaltenn]

Quick !!! Everyone throw up their favorite pic of Aug 15th sea ice. Here's mine from NSIDC..
Tell Squiddly that "concentration" is NOT the same as "extent". But that's why I don't do ice.

 

[Old Rocks]

GREENHOUSE GAS THEORY DISCREDITED BY 'COOLANT' CARBON DIOXIDE >> Four Winds 10 - Truth Winds

"Nahle, from the Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon in Monterrey, N. L., Mexico, has worked professionally as a scientist for over 40 years. His findings are set to add more fuel to the fire in the vigorous debate over the validity of a cornerstone of the science of environmental activism.

In his new paper, ‘Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands’ the Mexican biologist turned climate researcher proves that in nature, CO2 and water vapor mix together to decrease infrared radiation emissions/absorptions in the air. This is the opposite of what conventional climatology has been saying for years."

Sorry man. This guy couldn't calculate his own worthless skin area. His "paper" is a reply to the criticisms of his "first paper". Neither actually got published as far as I can tell. And this cabal of "slayers" aren't ever gonna get out of the Pee Wee League with gems like.

Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps

Now we address the IPCC’s biggest mistake. They started off with a flawed number, and then have to invent lots of other unreal processes and mechanisms to make the real Earth’s average temperature coincide with their numbers.

Professor Nasif Nahle points out that error in IPCC models:

“It’s quite simple. The flux of power on the top of the atmosphere is 1368 W/m^2; however, they [IPCC] say it is 341 W/m^2.”

Without an atmosphere, the Earth would be receiving a flux of 1368 W/m^2 of solar power (394K under the zenith facing the Sun). With the atmosphere, it receives and absorbs 718 W/m^2 (335K) on its surface.

True -- at top of atmos the Solar power is more like 1360W/m2. And the SURFACE flux is 718W/m2. But the idiot is missing the point that the 718W/m2 exists for about 1 minute at high noon at any lattitudinal position. Since the flat area at TOAtmos "wraps around" and MOVES with the earth's rotation -- the DAILY AVERAGE (annualized) insolation is more in the range 320W/m2..

There is NOTHING wrong with these numbers. He just doesn't understand the concept of an annualized "daily average" solar insolation number. He's missing a lot and OBVIOUSLY MIGHT have an advanced degree, but he's got no mentors to fix his basic mistakes.

As for CO2 being a COOLANT. That term is used very loosely. Does not mean that CO2 has no heat capacity or ability to radiate IR in all directions proportional to it's heat energy. His wild ass theory states that the "ATMOS cools the earth during the day and warms it at night". Which is very sloppy. Since the Earth is shedding heat thru atmos all day/night long and there is NO WARMING going on at night at all.

Don't bet the farm on finding hope on the Internet. If you can't convert Centigrade to Fahrenheit --- I wouldn't be tackling what ANYONE says to "disprove" the GH theory..

You sound like a warmer a lot now! You know more than a scientist

No, Flacaltenn is a skeptic as to how serious the situation is. I hope he is correct, but I don't think that he is, based on the physical evidence of the effects we are seeing already from the warming.

 

[Old Rocks]

Quick !!! Everyone throw up their favorite pic of Aug 15th sea ice. Here's mine from NSIDC..
Tell Squiddly that "concentration" is NOT the same as "extent". But that's why I don't do ice.

Uh Oh, now you are in trouble with Mr. Westwall.

 

[flacaltenn]

GREENHOUSE GAS THEORY DISCREDITED BY 'COOLANT' CARBON DIOXIDE >> Four Winds 10 - Truth Winds

"Nahle, from the Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon in Monterrey, N. L., Mexico, has worked professionally as a scientist for over 40 years. His findings are set to add more fuel to the fire in the vigorous debate over the validity of a cornerstone of the science of environmental activism.

In his new paper, ‘Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands’ the Mexican biologist turned climate researcher proves that in nature, CO2 and water vapor mix together to decrease infrared radiation emissions/absorptions in the air. This is the opposite of what conventional climatology has been saying for years."

Sorry man. This guy couldn't calculate his own worthless skin area. His "paper" is a reply to the criticisms of his "first paper". Neither actually got published as far as I can tell. And this cabal of "slayers" aren't ever gonna get out of the Pee Wee League with gems like.

Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps

Now we address the IPCC’s biggest mistake. They started off with a flawed number, and then have to invent lots of other unreal processes and mechanisms to make the real Earth’s average temperature coincide with their numbers.

Professor Nasif Nahle points out that error in IPCC models:

“It’s quite simple. The flux of power on the top of the atmosphere is 1368 W/m^2; however, they [IPCC] say it is 341 W/m^2.”

Without an atmosphere, the Earth would be receiving a flux of 1368 W/m^2 of solar power (394K under the zenith facing the Sun). With the atmosphere, it receives and absorbs 718 W/m^2 (335K) on its surface.

True -- at top of atmos the Solar power is more like 1360W/m2. And the SURFACE flux is 718W/m2. But the idiot is missing the point that the 718W/m2 exists for about 1 minute at high noon at any lattitudinal position. Since the flat area at TOAtmos "wraps around" and MOVES with the earth's rotation -- the DAILY AVERAGE (annualized) insolation is more in the range 320W/m2..

There is NOTHING wrong with these numbers. He just doesn't understand the concept of an annualized "daily average" solar insolation number. He's missing a lot and OBVIOUSLY MIGHT have an advanced degree, but he's got no mentors to fix his basic mistakes.

As for CO2 being a COOLANT. That term is used very loosely. Does not mean that CO2 has no heat capacity or ability to radiate IR in all directions proportional to it's heat energy. His wild ass theory states that the "ATMOS cools the earth during the day and warms it at night". Which is very sloppy. Since the Earth is shedding heat thru atmos all day/night long and there is NO WARMING going on at night at all.

Don't bet the farm on finding hope on the Internet. If you can't convert Centigrade to Fahrenheit --- I wouldn't be tackling what ANYONE says to "disprove" the GH theory..

You sound like a warmer a lot now! You know more than a scientist

I'm pretty confident I know more than YOUR scientist..

 

[jc456]

GREENHOUSE GAS THEORY DISCREDITED BY 'COOLANT' CARBON DIOXIDE >> Four Winds 10 - Truth Winds

"Nahle, from the Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon in Monterrey, N. L., Mexico, has worked professionally as a scientist for over 40 years. His findings are set to add more fuel to the fire in the vigorous debate over the validity of a cornerstone of the science of environmental activism.

In his new paper, ‘Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands’ the Mexican biologist turned climate researcher proves that in nature, CO2 and water vapor mix together to decrease infrared radiation emissions/absorptions in the air. This is the opposite of what conventional climatology has been saying for years."

Sorry man. This guy couldn't calculate his own worthless skin area. His "paper" is a reply to the criticisms of his "first paper". Neither actually got published as far as I can tell. And this cabal of "slayers" aren't ever gonna get out of the Pee Wee League with gems like.

Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps

Now we address the IPCC’s biggest mistake. They started off with a flawed number, and then have to invent lots of other unreal processes and mechanisms to make the real Earth’s average temperature coincide with their numbers.

Professor Nasif Nahle points out that error in IPCC models:

“It’s quite simple. The flux of power on the top of the atmosphere is 1368 W/m^2; however, they [IPCC] say it is 341 W/m^2.”

Without an atmosphere, the Earth would be receiving a flux of 1368 W/m^2 of solar power (394K under the zenith facing the Sun). With the atmosphere, it receives and absorbs 718 W/m^2 (335K) on its surface.

True -- at top of atmos the Solar power is more like 1360W/m2. And the SURFACE flux is 718W/m2. But the idiot is missing the point that the 718W/m2 exists for about 1 minute at high noon at any lattitudinal position. Since the flat area at TOAtmos "wraps around" and MOVES with the earth's rotation -- the DAILY AVERAGE (annualized) insolation is more in the range 320W/m2..

There is NOTHING wrong with these numbers. He just doesn't understand the concept of an annualized "daily average" solar insolation number. He's missing a lot and OBVIOUSLY MIGHT have an advanced degree, but he's got no mentors to fix his basic mistakes.

As for CO2 being a COOLANT. That term is used very loosely. Does not mean that CO2 has no heat capacity or ability to radiate IR in all directions proportional to it's heat energy. His wild ass theory states that the "ATMOS cools the earth during the day and warms it at night". Which is very sloppy. Since the Earth is shedding heat thru atmos all day/night long and there is NO WARMING going on at night at all.

Don't bet the farm on finding hope on the Internet. If you can't convert Centigrade to Fahrenheit --- I wouldn't be tackling what ANYONE says to "disprove" the GH theory..

You sound like a warmer a lot now! You know more than a scientist

No, Flacaltenn is a skeptic as to how serious the situation is. I hope he is correct, but I don't think that he is, based on the physical evidence of the effects we are seeing already from the warming.

Because it isn't getting warm? You're correct. It isn't.

 

[jc456]

GREENHOUSE GAS THEORY DISCREDITED BY 'COOLANT' CARBON DIOXIDE >> Four Winds 10 - Truth Winds

"Nahle, from the Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon in Monterrey, N. L., Mexico, has worked professionally as a scientist for over 40 years. His findings are set to add more fuel to the fire in the vigorous debate over the validity of a cornerstone of the science of environmental activism.

In his new paper, ‘Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands’ the Mexican biologist turned climate researcher proves that in nature, CO2 and water vapor mix together to decrease infrared radiation emissions/absorptions in the air. This is the opposite of what conventional climatology has been saying for years."

Sorry man. This guy couldn't calculate his own worthless skin area. His "paper" is a reply to the criticisms of his "first paper". Neither actually got published as far as I can tell. And this cabal of "slayers" aren't ever gonna get out of the Pee Wee League with gems like.

Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps

Now we address the IPCC’s biggest mistake. They started off with a flawed number, and then have to invent lots of other unreal processes and mechanisms to make the real Earth’s average temperature coincide with their numbers.

Professor Nasif Nahle points out that error in IPCC models:

“It’s quite simple. The flux of power on the top of the atmosphere is 1368 W/m^2; however, they [IPCC] say it is 341 W/m^2.”

Without an atmosphere, the Earth would be receiving a flux of 1368 W/m^2 of solar power (394K under the zenith facing the Sun). With the atmosphere, it receives and absorbs 718 W/m^2 (335K) on its surface.

True -- at top of atmos the Solar power is more like 1360W/m2. And the SURFACE flux is 718W/m2. But the idiot is missing the point that the 718W/m2 exists for about 1 minute at high noon at any lattitudinal position. Since the flat area at TOAtmos "wraps around" and MOVES with the earth's rotation -- the DAILY AVERAGE (annualized) insolation is more in the range 320W/m2..

There is NOTHING wrong with these numbers. He just doesn't understand the concept of an annualized "daily average" solar insolation number. He's missing a lot and OBVIOUSLY MIGHT have an advanced degree, but he's got no mentors to fix his basic mistakes.

As for CO2 being a COOLANT. That term is used very loosely. Does not mean that CO2 has no heat capacity or ability to radiate IR in all directions proportional to it's heat energy. His wild ass theory states that the "ATMOS cools the earth during the day and warms it at night". Which is very sloppy. Since the Earth is shedding heat thru atmos all day/night long and there is NO WARMING going on at night at all.

Don't bet the farm on finding hope on the Internet. If you can't convert Centigrade to Fahrenheit --- I wouldn't be tackling what ANYONE says to "disprove" the GH theory..

You sound like a warmer a lot now! You know more than a scientist

I'm pretty confident I know more than YOUR scientist..

Cause you've got an experiment that shows differently? Great, post it.

 

[flacaltenn]

GREENHOUSE GAS THEORY DISCREDITED BY 'COOLANT' CARBON DIOXIDE >> Four Winds 10 - Truth Winds

"Nahle, from the Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon in Monterrey, N. L., Mexico, has worked professionally as a scientist for over 40 years. His findings are set to add more fuel to the fire in the vigorous debate over the validity of a cornerstone of the science of environmental activism.

In his new paper, ‘Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands’ the Mexican biologist turned climate researcher proves that in nature, CO2 and water vapor mix together to decrease infrared radiation emissions/absorptions in the air. This is the opposite of what conventional climatology has been saying for years."

Sorry man. This guy couldn't calculate his own worthless skin area. His "paper" is a reply to the criticisms of his "first paper". Neither actually got published as far as I can tell. And this cabal of "slayers" aren't ever gonna get out of the Pee Wee League with gems like.

Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps

Now we address the IPCC’s biggest mistake. They started off with a flawed number, and then have to invent lots of other unreal processes and mechanisms to make the real Earth’s average temperature coincide with their numbers.

Professor Nasif Nahle points out that error in IPCC models:

“It’s quite simple. The flux of power on the top of the atmosphere is 1368 W/m^2; however, they [IPCC] say it is 341 W/m^2.”

Without an atmosphere, the Earth would be receiving a flux of 1368 W/m^2 of solar power (394K under the zenith facing the Sun). With the atmosphere, it receives and absorbs 718 W/m^2 (335K) on its surface.

True -- at top of atmos the Solar power is more like 1360W/m2. And the SURFACE flux is 718W/m2. But the idiot is missing the point that the 718W/m2 exists for about 1 minute at high noon at any lattitudinal position. Since the flat area at TOAtmos "wraps around" and MOVES with the earth's rotation -- the DAILY AVERAGE (annualized) insolation is more in the range 320W/m2..

There is NOTHING wrong with these numbers. He just doesn't understand the concept of an annualized "daily average" solar insolation number. He's missing a lot and OBVIOUSLY MIGHT have an advanced degree, but he's got no mentors to fix his basic mistakes.

As for CO2 being a COOLANT. That term is used very loosely. Does not mean that CO2 has no heat capacity or ability to radiate IR in all directions proportional to it's heat energy. His wild ass theory states that the "ATMOS cools the earth during the day and warms it at night". Which is very sloppy. Since the Earth is shedding heat thru atmos all day/night long and there is NO WARMING going on at night at all.

Don't bet the farm on finding hope on the Internet. If you can't convert Centigrade to Fahrenheit --- I wouldn't be tackling what ANYONE says to "disprove" the GH theory..

You sound like a warmer a lot now! You know more than a scientist

No, Flacaltenn is a skeptic as to how serious the situation is. I hope he is correct, but I don't think that he is, based on the physical evidence of the effects we are seeing already from the warming.

Appreciate the "vote of confidence".. I guess you didn't grab a copy of the brand new Bray and von Storch Survey of Climate Scientists that a posted a couple days ago. In it, you'll find very LITTLE confidence in the ability to attribute "current severe effects" to GW. And especially a bunch of skepticism on making heat wave or precipt or storm predictions even 10 years out.

I appreciate you attention and dilligience. But you don't have the "posse" that you IMAGINE you have when you read the daily news and SEE GW in action today.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Can't prove greenhouse gas? Well, we can prove it. We can prove there's water vapor in the air, we can prove there's CO2 in the air.

We can also prove the greenhouse effect. If you compare the Earth with other planets, you see why the Earth is inhabited and others aren't.

As I said, we don't have nothing, we have 90% knowledge, or more.

you can't prove how warm 20 PPM of CO2 is can you?

No, and I don't need to, because CO2 isn't "warm". CO2 merely blocks what is coming in. So it all depends on how much heat is coming in for the CO2 to prevent leaving the planet.

CO2 does absorb incoming IR, and outgoing IR just leaves the atmosphere. Cools the planet. You're correct no heat so it can't warm the planet

CO2 doesn't warm the planet in itself. However the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere, and other greenhouse gases, does allow for the planet to be warmer.

It's the same as the whole gun thing. "Guns don't kill people, people do", well maybe, but people with guns kill people far better than people without guns, hence why the military gives its soldiers guns.

The planet gets warm from the sun. The same as other planets.

Hottest planet in the solar system? Venus. Why not Mercury which is closer to the sun?

How Hot is Venus?

"The reason Venus is hotter than even Mercury is not because of its position in the solar system but because of its thick, dense cloud layer."

The cloud layer is made up of greenhouse gases.

"The atmosphere of Venus is made up almost completely of carbon dioxide, with traces of nitrogen."

"The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius).The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius)."

"The nights on Venus are as warm as the days."

How Hot is Mercury?

"it boasts the most widely varying temperatures in the solar system"

"The day side of the planet reaches temperatures of up to 801 F (427 degrees C). In contrast, the chilly night side can get as cold as minus 279 F (minus 173 C)."

So, the question is, why does Mercury get down to minus 279 F and Venus doesn't. You know the answer right?

"Mercury's low mass and close proximity to the sun keep it from having anything but the thinnest of atmospheres, and this is the reason it must pass on being the hottest planet. An atmosphere helps to cloak a planet, keeping heat from leaking into space and balancing it, to some degree. Without an atmosphere, Mercury loses a great deal of heat into space, rather than sharing with its night side."

The atmosphere is lacking, so the heat is lost.

So, looking at other planets we can PROVE that the greenhouse effect exists. The Greenhouse effect makes Venus, at 66 to 107 million miles from the sun WARMER than Mercury which is 29 to 46 million miles away. That's half the distance of Venus and the sun, yet isn't warmer.

The sun heats up both Mercury and Venus, the CO2 on Venus traps this heat and causes it not to escape into the atmosphere so the heat of the sun can increase, rather than leave.

look up Diurnal Bulge.

How about you make your case, instead of asking people to look up the stuff you think will make your case?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Gore Effect Strikes Again

A group of adventurers, sailors, pilots and climate scientists that recently started a journey around the North Pole in an effort to show the lack of ice, has been blocked from further travels by ice.

The Polar Ocean Challenge is taking a two month journey that will see them go from Bristol, Alaska, to Norway, then to Russia through the North East passage, back to Alaska through the North West passage, to Greenland and then ultimately back to Bristol. Their objective, as laid out by their website, was to demonstrate “that the Arctic sea ice coverage shrinks back so far now in the summer months that sea that was permanently locked up now can allow passage through.”

There has been one small hiccup thus-far though: they are currently stuck in Murmansk, Russia because there is too much ice blocking the North East passage the team said didn’t exist in summer months, according to Real Climate Science.

Real Climate Science also provides a graph showing that current Arctic temperatures — despite alarmist claims of the Arctic being hotter than ever — is actually below normal.

The Polar Ocean Challenge team is not the first global warming expedition to be faced with icy troubles. In 2013, an Antarctic research vessel named Akademik Shokalskiy became trapped in the ice, the problem was so severe that they actually had to rescue the 52 crew members.

Global Warming Expedition Stopped In Its Tracks By Arctic Sea Ice

Your logic is funny.

Nothing states that there should be no ice there. You just wish it to be so.

No? Your hero's have been bleating about an ice free Arctic for years now.... Below is just one of hundreds of hysterical reports that the Arctic will be ice free. Most recently the Siearra Club was breathlessly telling me that it would be ice free by 2013. How did that work out?

"The set-up for this summer is disturbing," says Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). A number of factors have this year led to most of the Arctic ice being thin and vulnerable as it enters its summer melting season.
North Pole Could Be Ice Free in 2008

"hero's" is one hero's thing. You mean heroes.

But why would they be my heroes? Don't use such condescending crap with me.

I don't care what other people have been saying, you're not talking with those other people, you're talking with me.