Hawking's Life's Work About to be Falsified

[SSDD]

Very simply, as the Arctic Ocean warms, the CH4 clathrates outgas. Then the CH4 clathrates that are present on all the continental margins outgas. It has happened before. Problem is, we don't have a firm grip on a timeline for this. Maybe next year, maybe two centuries from now.

Given how quickly the Artic Ice has melted, far faster than the 'Alarmist' estimates, I would bet sooner rather than later.

Some numbers. It takes 334 Joules of energy to convert one gram of 0 degree ice to one gram of 0 degree water. 90% of the sunlight striking ice is reflected back into space. 90% of the sunlight striking water is absorbed. Since it takes 4.81 Joules of energy to raise one gram of water one degree, the energy that was melting one gram of ice is now raising 69 grams of water one degree in temperature.

And, since the water is obsorbing 90% of the energy in the sunlight, the sunlight that was melting one gram of ice, no increase in temperature, is now heating 625 grams of water one degree.

As for the rest of your silly diatribe, it is the rate of change that is creating the problems. And with 7 billion humans on this planet, anything that affects agriculture in a negative manner is a danger to that population.

And you believe any of that is unique in history based on what?

And a fraction of a degree with a margin of error larger than the claimed increase is well within the realm of natural variability. Face it rocks, you have been scaled.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Very simply, as the Arctic Ocean warms, the CH4 clathrates outgas. Then the CH4 clathrates that are present on all the continental margins outgas. It has happened before. Problem is, we don't have a firm grip on a timeline for this. Maybe next year, maybe two centuries from now.

Given how quickly the Artic Ice has melted, far faster than the 'Alarmist' estimates, I would bet sooner rather than later.

Some numbers. It takes 334 Joules of energy to convert one gram of 0 degree ice to one gram of 0 degree water. 90% of the sunlight striking ice is reflected back into space. 90% of the sunlight striking water is absorbed. Since it takes 4.81 Joules of energy to raise one gram of water one degree, the energy that was melting one gram of ice is now raising 69 grams of water one degree in temperature.

And, since the water is obsorbing 90% of the energy in the sunlight, the sunlight that was melting one gram of ice, no increase in temperature, is now heating 625 grams of water one degree.

As for the rest of your silly diatribe, it is the rate of change that is creating the problems. And with 7 billion humans on this planet, anything that affects agriculture in a negative manner is a danger to that population.

And you believe any of that is unique in history based on what?

And a fraction of a degree with a margin of error larger than the claimed increase is well within the realm of natural variability. Face it rocks, you have been scaled.

Please show us at what point in the fast temperatures increased this rapidly.

 

[SSDD]

Please show us at what point in the fast temperatures increased this rapidly.

"This rapidly"? Are you kidding? The smaller half of a degree in half a century with the margin of error being larger than the claimed increase? Are you really serious?

As this graph shows, the temperature increase in the past 100 years is not even unprecedented within the recorded record.

And vostok provides us with many instances of temperature increases as fast or faster and as great or greater than the present. For example:

The fact is that history is replete with plenty of evience of greater and faster temperature swings than the fraction of a degree that you screaming memies are wailing about. You have been had by hoaxters and are either not bright enough to know it or are to proud to admit that you were fooled and are going to ride the AGW crazytrain to the end of the tracks and disappear only to reappear with new names claiming to have never believed the hype.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Please show us at what point in the fast temperatures increased this rapidly.

"This rapidly"? Are you kidding? The smaller half of a degree in half a century with the margin of error being larger than the claimed increase? Are you really serious?

The margin of error isn't larger than the claimed increase.

As this graph shows, the temperature increase in the past 100 years is not even unprecedented within the recorded record.

LOL! Maybe in Central England! Have you ever heard of "global" warming? The global average temperature has risen by 3/4 a degree Centigrade in 100 years. There are 500 100 year periods between each of the 50,000 marks on the Vostok sample - which peak did you say was the one with a slope exceeding 375 degrees per 50,000 year mark?

 

[westwall]

Oh, so you've been joking all along!!!??
That makes a lot more sense if I think about it.

Oh, I doubt it. I've not seen you think too much to be honest. You tow the collectivist line without too much thought at all.

If that's true, then so do you.
You claim that there are a significant number of well-credentialled folk agree with you - you're towing a collectivist line as well.
You run with your herd and I'll run with mine.

Wow, you truly are clueless aren't you! When I call someone a collectivist it means that they believe that evil CO2 needs to be curtailed by clamping down on the technological lifestyle the west leads. Which ultimately is a political goal..

They believe that THEY are the only ones smart enought to rule the world and to keep us from hurting ourselves. These are the same idiots who supported Stalin during his collectivisation of the farms, which killed millions.

You, and your ilk, who ignore hundreds of peer reviewed studies that counter the meme of AGW, are the new collectivists. I believe in the rights and the responsiblities of the individual, you don't. You believe that the individual exists for the benefit of the government.

Do you see the difference in philosophies?

 

[westwall]

Very simply, as the Arctic Ocean warms, the CH4 clathrates outgas. Then the CH4 clathrates that are present on all the continental margins outgas. It has happened before. Problem is, we don't have a firm grip on a timeline for this. Maybe next year, maybe two centuries from now.

Given how quickly the Artic Ice has melted, far faster than the 'Alarmist' estimates, I would bet sooner rather than later.

Some numbers. It takes 334 Joules of energy to convert one gram of 0 degree ice to one gram of 0 degree water. 90% of the sunlight striking ice is reflected back into space. 90% of the sunlight striking water is absorbed. Since it takes 4.81 Joules of energy to raise one gram of water one degree, the energy that was melting one gram of ice is now raising 69 grams of water one degree in temperature.

And, since the water is obsorbing 90% of the energy in the sunlight, the sunlight that was melting one gram of ice, no increase in temperature, is now heating 625 grams of water one degree.

As for the rest of your silly diatribe, it is the rate of change that is creating the problems. And with 7 billion humans on this planet, anything that affects agriculture in a negative manner is a danger to that population.

The Holocene Thermal max was far warmer than the temps today. If the "theory" you propose had legs, we would STILL be hotter than hell. There would have been no Little Ice Age, there would have been no MWP, or RWP, or 6th century climate collapse...we would STILL be at the same temps (or according to your deluded logic EVEN WARMER) of the Holocene Thermal Max.

See how real science works as opposed to computer model fictions? You look at what really happened. You compare it to what is happening today. If what is happening today is pretty much the same thing that happened in the past.....then....logically.....the CAUSE IS MOST LIKELY THE SAME.

That's how science works...but as we all know now...you guys don't do science...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Very simply, as the Arctic Ocean warms, the CH4 clathrates outgas. Then the CH4 clathrates that are present on all the continental margins outgas. It has happened before. Problem is, we don't have a firm grip on a timeline for this. Maybe next year, maybe two centuries from now.

Given how quickly the Artic Ice has melted, far faster than the 'Alarmist' estimates, I would bet sooner rather than later.

Some numbers. It takes 334 Joules of energy to convert one gram of 0 degree ice to one gram of 0 degree water. 90% of the sunlight striking ice is reflected back into space. 90% of the sunlight striking water is absorbed. Since it takes 4.81 Joules of energy to raise one gram of water one degree, the energy that was melting one gram of ice is now raising 69 grams of water one degree in temperature.

And, since the water is obsorbing 90% of the energy in the sunlight, the sunlight that was melting one gram of ice, no increase in temperature, is now heating 625 grams of water one degree.

As for the rest of your silly diatribe, it is the rate of change that is creating the problems. And with 7 billion humans on this planet, anything that affects agriculture in a negative manner is a danger to that population.

Question.

If you are so uneducated you cannot conclude that a paper that claims that general relativity violates the conservation of energy and momentum is completely bogus why should we listen to anything you say about even the most basic science?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Very simply, as the Arctic Ocean warms, the CH4 clathrates outgas. Then the CH4 clathrates that are present on all the continental margins outgas. It has happened before. Problem is, we don't have a firm grip on a timeline for this. Maybe next year, maybe two centuries from now.

Given how quickly the Artic Ice has melted, far faster than the 'Alarmist' estimates, I would bet sooner rather than later.

Some numbers. It takes 334 Joules of energy to convert one gram of 0 degree ice to one gram of 0 degree water. 90% of the sunlight striking ice is reflected back into space. 90% of the sunlight striking water is absorbed. Since it takes 4.81 Joules of energy to raise one gram of water one degree, the energy that was melting one gram of ice is now raising 69 grams of water one degree in temperature.

And, since the water is obsorbing 90% of the energy in the sunlight, the sunlight that was melting one gram of ice, no increase in temperature, is now heating 625 grams of water one degree.

As for the rest of your silly diatribe, it is the rate of change that is creating the problems. And with 7 billion humans on this planet, anything that affects agriculture in a negative manner is a danger to that population.

Question.

If you are so uneducated you cannot conclude that a paper that claims that general relativity violates the conservation of energy and momentum is completely bogus why should we listen to anything you say about even the most basic science?

You should forgive him, the general population isn't familiar with Noether's theorem.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Very simply, as the Arctic Ocean warms, the CH4 clathrates outgas. Then the CH4 clathrates that are present on all the continental margins outgas. It has happened before. Problem is, we don't have a firm grip on a timeline for this. Maybe next year, maybe two centuries from now.

Given how quickly the Artic Ice has melted, far faster than the 'Alarmist' estimates, I would bet sooner rather than later.

Some numbers. It takes 334 Joules of energy to convert one gram of 0 degree ice to one gram of 0 degree water. 90% of the sunlight striking ice is reflected back into space. 90% of the sunlight striking water is absorbed. Since it takes 4.81 Joules of energy to raise one gram of water one degree, the energy that was melting one gram of ice is now raising 69 grams of water one degree in temperature.

And, since the water is obsorbing 90% of the energy in the sunlight, the sunlight that was melting one gram of ice, no increase in temperature, is now heating 625 grams of water one degree.

As for the rest of your silly diatribe, it is the rate of change that is creating the problems. And with 7 billion humans on this planet, anything that affects agriculture in a negative manner is a danger to that population.

Question.

If you are so uneducated you cannot conclude that a paper that claims that general relativity violates the conservation of energy and momentum is completely bogus why should we listen to anything you say about even the most basic science?

You should forgive him, the general population isn't familiar with Noether's theorem.

He says he is a geologist, he should know that people would have noticed a conflict between relativity and conservation of energy by now. if it existed. The fact that he didn't even take the time to read the comments on the abstract page, which imply that Einstein was part of a conspiracy to kill Godel to cover up time travel, makes me wonder if he even graduated from high school.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Question.

If you are so uneducated you cannot conclude that a paper that claims that general relativity violates the conservation of energy and momentum is completely bogus why should we listen to anything you say about even the most basic science?

You should forgive him, the general population isn't familiar with Noether's theorem.

He says he is a geologist, he should know that people would have noticed a conflict between relativity and conservation of energy by now. if it existed. The fact that he didn't even take the time to read the comments on the abstract page, which imply that Einstein was part of a conspiracy to kill Godel to cover up time travel, makes me wonder if he even graduated from high school.

Conservation under GR actually isn't very simple. There's quite a bit of complexity when it comes to defining exactly what energy even is under GR.

 

[SSDD]

The margin of error isn't larger than the claimed increase.

Of course it is. Tell me what is the global mean temperature? Does such a thing even exist and how accurate do you suppose the number is?

LOL! Maybe in Central England! Have you ever heard of "global" warming?

Feel free to prove that that period in central england is unique in all the history of the entire world. Good luck with that.

global average temperature has risen by 3/4 a degree Centigrade in 100 years.

which altered record are you using?

Face it, you have been duped and the wheels are falling off your crazy train. Get off while you have some face left to save.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You should forgive him, the general population isn't familiar with Noether's theorem.

He says he is a geologist, he should know that people would have noticed a conflict between relativity and conservation of energy by now. if it existed. The fact that he didn't even take the time to read the comments on the abstract page, which imply that Einstein was part of a conspiracy to kill Godel to cover up time travel, makes me wonder if he even graduated from high school.

Conservation under GR actually isn't very simple. There's quite a bit of complexity when it comes to defining exactly what energy even is under GR.

Does general relativity violate the conservation of momentum and energy?

 

[idb]

Oh, I doubt it. I've not seen you think too much to be honest. You tow the collectivist line without too much thought at all.

If that's true, then so do you.
You claim that there are a significant number of well-credentialled folk agree with you - you're towing a collectivist line as well.
You run with your herd and I'll run with mine.

Wow, you truly are clueless aren't you! When I call someone a collectivist it means that they believe that evil CO2 needs to be curtailed by clamping down on the technological lifestyle the west leads. Which ultimately is a political goal..

They believe that THEY are the only ones smart enought to rule the world and to keep us from hurting ourselves. These are the same idiots who supported Stalin during his collectivisation of the farms, which killed millions.

You, and your ilk, who ignore hundreds of peer reviewed studies that counter the meme of AGW, are the new collectivists. I believe in the rights and the responsiblities of the individual, you don't. You believe that the individual exists for the benefit of the government.

Do you see the difference in philosophies?

So, how does your believing those "hundreds of peer reviewed studies" make you such an independent thinker?
Are you the only one that believes them or something?

I marvel in the incredible insight you have into my character and beliefs.
Is that through research or just something you believe?

 

[westwall]

If that's true, then so do you.
You claim that there are a significant number of well-credentialled folk agree with you - you're towing a collectivist line as well.
You run with your herd and I'll run with mine.

Wow, you truly are clueless aren't you! When I call someone a collectivist it means that they believe that evil CO2 needs to be curtailed by clamping down on the technological lifestyle the west leads. Which ultimately is a political goal..

They believe that THEY are the only ones smart enought to rule the world and to keep us from hurting ourselves. These are the same idiots who supported Stalin during his collectivisation of the farms, which killed millions.

You, and your ilk, who ignore hundreds of peer reviewed studies that counter the meme of AGW, are the new collectivists. I believe in the rights and the responsiblities of the individual, you don't. You believe that the individual exists for the benefit of the government.

Do you see the difference in philosophies?

So, how does your believing those "hundreds of peer reviewed studies" make you such an independent thinker?
Are you the only one that believes them or something?

I marvel in the incredible insight you have into my character and beliefs.
Is that through research or just something you believe?

I look at ALL the papers. Both those for AND against. Your side doesn't want ANY OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS to even be discussed. That's not science and that's why they have lost the fight. The regular people and the scientists without a dog in the fight see the perversion of science and they rebelled.

As far as your "character", one need only look at your posts and a tremendous amount of information can be derived. I was able to determine that saggy wasn't truly Finnish by his posts. It's sort of how FBI profilers work. You read what people say over a long period of time and their character is exposed for all to see.

It's not rocket science.

 

[flacaltenn]

I chuckle everytime I hear on the news a story begin with....

"Scientists NOW believe ...... " Just those 2 words in conjunctions tell you a lot about the process.

If someone SUCCEEDs in overturning Hawkings work -- He dies in quiet mental agony. But it doesn't mean he didn't fill the gap until "Scientists believe...." something else. Its a fickle bunch of primadonnas actually...

 

[idb]

Wow, you truly are clueless aren't you! When I call someone a collectivist it means that they believe that evil CO2 needs to be curtailed by clamping down on the technological lifestyle the west leads. Which ultimately is a political goal..

They believe that THEY are the only ones smart enought to rule the world and to keep us from hurting ourselves. These are the same idiots who supported Stalin during his collectivisation of the farms, which killed millions.

You, and your ilk, who ignore hundreds of peer reviewed studies that counter the meme of AGW, are the new collectivists. I believe in the rights and the responsiblities of the individual, you don't. You believe that the individual exists for the benefit of the government.

Do you see the difference in philosophies?

So, how does your believing those "hundreds of peer reviewed studies" make you such an independent thinker?
Are you the only one that believes them or something?

I marvel in the incredible insight you have into my character and beliefs.
Is that through research or just something you believe?

I look at ALL the papers. Both those for AND against. Your side doesn't want ANY OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS to even be discussed. That's not science and that's why they have lost the fight. The regular people and the scientists without a dog in the fight see the perversion of science and they rebelled.

As far as your "character", one need only look at your posts and a tremendous amount of information can be derived. I was able to determine that saggy wasn't truly Finnish by his posts. It's sort of how FBI profilers work. You read what people say over a long period of time and their character is exposed for all to see.

It's not rocket science.

I look at ALL the papers. Both those for AND against. Your side doesn't want ANY OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS to even be discussed.

That makes no sense.
If there are papers for AND against then there must be opposing viewpoints.

You've talked yourself up a lot over your time on this board but I've grown increasingly sceptical over recent months.

Shame really, I actually value talking to people that can knowledgeably state their case - it makes me do research, and often I learn something.
Especially as I'm more agnostic on the AGW issue than you think.
I guess I'll have to look elsewhere.

 

[SSDD]

I chuckle everytime I hear on the news a story begin with....

"Scientists NOW believe ...... " Just those 2 words in conjunctions tell you a lot about the process.

If someone SUCCEEDs in overturning Hawkings work -- He dies in quiet mental agony. But it doesn't mean he didn't fill the gap until "Scientists believe...." something else. Its a fickle bunch of primadonnas actually...

Those words seem to come along more and more often. You can't help but laugh at people who believe science sees all and knows all. Even the fundamentals are still up for debate.

 

[SSDD]

I look at ALL the papers. Both those for AND against. Your side doesn't want ANY OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS to even be discussed.

That makes no sense.
If there are papers for AND against then there must be opposing viewpoints.

You've talked yourself up a lot over your time on this board but I've grown increasingly sceptical over recent months.

Shame really, I actually value talking to people that can knowledgeably state their case - it makes me do research, and often I learn something.
Especially as I'm more agnostic on the AGW issue than you think.
I guess I'll have to look elsewhere.

You don't seem to understand that there is a whole lot of good science out there that never made it past the climate science pal review program. That in and of itself casts the whole of climate science into question. The mere fact that skepticism remains alive and well, and thriving in spite of the fact that pro warmist research enjoys a 1000 to 1 ratio of funding should be enough to clue any thinking person into the fact that something is wrong with the field. Then there are the fundamental flaws upon which the entire science is based.

Do you really believe that the surface of the earth receives more than twice as much energy from the atmosphere than it does from the sun? In order to believe in the AGW and CAGW hypothesis, you must believe that. Do you?

 

[mamooth]

Your side doesn't want ANY OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS to even be discussed.

The mere fact that skepticism remains alive and well, and thriving in spite of the fact that pro warmist research enjoys a 1000 to 1 ratio of funding should be enough to clue any thinking person into the fact that something is wrong with the field.

Such amusing paranoia. It illustrates how the right-wing-fringe political cult has a set of mantras which it requires its members to chant, one of those mantras being how persecuted the cult is.

You read what people say over a long period of time and their character is exposed for all to see.

So when someone is constantly fabricating bizarre conspiracy theories in order to declare his opponent is a fraud, what does that say about his character?

Do you really believe that the surface of the earth receives more than twice as much energy from the atmosphere than it does from the sun?

Of course. That's just common sense. The surface doesn't immediately freeze when the sun goes away, so it's obvious that the surface gets the bulk of energy from backradiation.

 

[SSDD]

[

Of course. That's just common sense. The surface doesn't immediately freeze when the sun goes away, so it's obvious that the surface gets the bulk of energy from backradiation.

Common sense? You think it is common sense to believe that more than twice as much energy as comes from the sun can't be measured at ambient temperature. You believe in fairy tales.