Let the Whistle Blowing Begin....

[RollingThunder]

This bogus bullshit thread was killed a long time ago in post #88.....but the denier cult cretins are too stupid to realize it.

Quoting....

The usual braindead fraudulent drivel from the denier cult nutjobs and propaganda pushers, based only on their own stupidity, ignorance and gullibility.

This nonsense has already been debunked in detail many places....here's some more...

Climate Change, Science, NOAA Falsely Maligned by Tabloid Spin
(excerpts)
As a result of human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, the planet is warming. Those who deny this fact have pointed to a supposed “pause” in warming to justify opposition to climate action. In 2015, a study led by NOAA’s Tom Karl was published in Science that flatly refuted the idea of a “pause.” It is one of many. But its high profile made it a target for attack.

On Saturday, a feature in the UK’s Mail on Sunday by David Rose makes outrageous claims that were already disproven as the paper version hit stands, and that he has already had to, in part, correct. Rose, who has a history of inaccurate reporting, spins a scandal out of a letter by a former NOAA employee published on a climate change denial blog. The letter makes accusations of wrongdoing in the methodology and data archiving procedures used in the study. These accusations have already been shown to be faulty. Even if they were true, the implications have been blown out of proportion by Rose.

Rebuttals were published in record time, as within minutes there was a tweet describing the story as “so wrong its hard to know where to start”:

● John Abraham provides context in the Guardian, and points out the many factors Rose fails to address that, when considered, completely undercut his allegations of misconduct.

● Zeke Hausfather, in a fact check, discusses the various lines of evidence that support Karl’s findings. Hausfather published a study in 2016 that confirmed Karl’s findings that the planet has continued to warm, confirming there was never any real “pause.”

● Scott Johnson at Ars Technica spoke with NOAA insiders, and explains how tensions between the science and engineering side of things caused conflict between Karl, who wanted the handling of data to reflect the many sources of the data, and Bates, who advocated for using just one approach that could handle data from many different sources, but sometimes added years to the process.

● Peter Thorne at the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units, who unlike the letter’s author actually worked on the Karl paper, identifies several key aspects of the allegations that are a “mis-representation of the processes that actually occurred. In some cases these mis-representations are publically verifiable.”

● Victor Venema of the WMO discusses both the specifics of the data sets as well as some lighthearted context to help understand the “reporting” done by the Mail’s David Rose.

● Ten climate envoys and ministers involved with the Paris Agreement said there was no truth to Rose’s claim that this study influenced their decisions.

● In an interview, Bates pushed back on the allegations made by Rose, and “specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.” And said that "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," he said.

(Read more at site)

.....

Ahhhhh.....so, JustCrazy, you are obviously as vacuous and empty of rational content as ever!

 

[jc456]

This bogus bullshit thread was killed a long time ago in post #88.....but the denier cult cretins are too stupid to realize it.

Quoting....

The usual braindead fraudulent drivel from the denier cult nutjobs and propaganda pushers, based only on their own stupidity, ignorance and gullibility.

This nonsense has already been debunked in detail many places....here's some more...

Climate Change, Science, NOAA Falsely Maligned by Tabloid Spin
(excerpts)
As a result of human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, the planet is warming. Those who deny this fact have pointed to a supposed “pause” in warming to justify opposition to climate action. In 2015, a study led by NOAA’s Tom Karl was published in Science that flatly refuted the idea of a “pause.” It is one of many. But its high profile made it a target for attack.

On Saturday, a feature in the UK’s Mail on Sunday by David Rose makes outrageous claims that were already disproven as the paper version hit stands, and that he has already had to, in part, correct. Rose, who has a history of inaccurate reporting, spins a scandal out of a letter by a former NOAA employee published on a climate change denial blog. The letter makes accusations of wrongdoing in the methodology and data archiving procedures used in the study. These accusations have already been shown to be faulty. Even if they were true, the implications have been blown out of proportion by Rose.

Rebuttals were published in record time, as within minutes there was a tweet describing the story as “so wrong its hard to know where to start”:

● John Abraham provides context in the Guardian, and points out the many factors Rose fails to address that, when considered, completely undercut his allegations of misconduct.

● Zeke Hausfather, in a fact check, discusses the various lines of evidence that support Karl’s findings. Hausfather published a study in 2016 that confirmed Karl’s findings that the planet has continued to warm, confirming there was never any real “pause.”

● Scott Johnson at Ars Technica spoke with NOAA insiders, and explains how tensions between the science and engineering side of things caused conflict between Karl, who wanted the handling of data to reflect the many sources of the data, and Bates, who advocated for using just one approach that could handle data from many different sources, but sometimes added years to the process.

● Peter Thorne at the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units, who unlike the letter’s author actually worked on the Karl paper, identifies several key aspects of the allegations that are a “mis-representation of the processes that actually occurred. In some cases these mis-representations are publically verifiable.”

● Victor Venema of the WMO discusses both the specifics of the data sets as well as some lighthearted context to help understand the “reporting” done by the Mail’s David Rose.

● Ten climate envoys and ministers involved with the Paris Agreement said there was no truth to Rose’s claim that this study influenced their decisions.

● In an interview, Bates pushed back on the allegations made by Rose, and “specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.” And said that "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," he said.

(Read more at site)

.....

Ahhhhh.....so, JustCrazy, you are obviously as vacuous and empty of rational content as ever!

fking make a point. Don't post shit I have no desire to read. make a point off of the material for me to respond to. data is manipulated, proven. Bates admits it now.

 

[IanC]

jc, you (and Same Shit) are the ones claiming it won't warm the oven, or the room.

what the hell are you talking about. I just said a 200 degree light bulb will warm a 70 degree environment. What I won't say is the 70 degree environment will warm the 200 degree light bulb. MK? dude you're still useless.

Then why are you saying the sunlight reaching the surface is the equivalent of a radiator at -18C?

 

[RollingThunder]

fking make a point.

Oops, sorry JustCrazy, but the ONLY "point" you have ever made on this forum is the one on top of your head.

Don't post shit I have no desire to read.

Well, fuck you, retard. I know you don't want to read the science or the facts, but those are what intelligent people use to support their arguments...so tough shit, moron!

data is manipulated, proven. Bates admits it now.

The data is fine....what is "proven" is that you are a useless braindead troll.

Bates himself denies your bullshit claims....

In an interview, Bates pushed back on the allegations made by Rose, and “specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.”

And said that "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," he said.

 

[jc456]

fking make a point.

Oops, sorry JustCrazy, but the ONLY "point" you have ever made on this forum is the one on top of your head.

Don't post shit I have no desire to read.

Well, fuck you, retard. I know you don't want to read the science or the facts, but those are what intelligent people use to support their arguments...so tough shit, moron!

data is manipulated, proven. Bates admits it now.

The data is fine....what is "proven" is that you are a useless braindead troll.

Bates himself denies your bullshit claims....

In an interview, Bates pushed back on the allegations made by Rose, and “specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.”

And said that "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," he said.

When there are no words.

 

[RollingThunder]

fking make a point.

Oops, sorry JustCrazy, but the ONLY "point" you have ever made on this forum is the one on top of your head.

Don't post shit I have no desire to read.

Well, fuck you, retard. I know you don't want to read the science or the facts, but those are what intelligent people use to support their arguments...so tough shit, moron!

data is manipulated, proven. Bates admits it now.

The data is fine....what is "proven" is that you are a useless braindead troll.

Bates himself denies your bullshit claims....

In an interview, Bates pushed back on the allegations made by Rose, and “specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.”

And said that "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," he said.

When there are no words.....

....because you are an ignorant fuck-wit troll whose bullshit just got debunked!

 

[jc456]

fking make a point.

Oops, sorry JustCrazy, but the ONLY "point" you have ever made on this forum is the one on top of your head.

Don't post shit I have no desire to read.

Well, fuck you, retard. I know you don't want to read the science or the facts, but those are what intelligent people use to support their arguments...so tough shit, moron!

data is manipulated, proven. Bates admits it now.

The data is fine....what is "proven" is that you are a useless braindead troll.

Bates himself denies your bullshit claims....

In an interview, Bates pushed back on the allegations made by Rose, and “specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.”

And said that "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," he said.

When there are no words.....

....because you are an ignorant fuck-wit troll whose bullshit just got debunked!

when there are no words.

 

[RollingThunder]

when there are no words.

....because you are an ignorant fuck-wit troll whose bullshit just got debunked!

 

[jc456]

when there are no words.

....because you are an ignorant fuck-wit troll whose bullshit just got debunked!

it did?

 

[RollingThunder]

when there are no words.

....because you are an ignorant fuck-wit troll whose bullshit just got debunked!

it did?

Yup! Posts #88, 139, & 144! You poor delusional retard.

 

[jc456]

when there are no words.

....because you are an ignorant fuck-wit troll whose bullshit just got debunked!

it did?

Yup! Posts #88, 139, & 144! You poor delusional retard.

and I'm still waiting.

 

[Crick]

For what?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Are you actually suggesting that S-B says the 200W light WILL cool it?

I don't believe the 200W light will make the 400W environment any warmer.

Hahahaha, why don't you go out your hand really close to an incandescent light bulb. Now turn it on. Feel the coolness?

Hahahaha. You imbeciles give morons a bad name.

A 400 hundred watt environment implies thermal balance. Placing a 200 watt light where the 400 watt light was will result in a negative imbalance and cooling.

Placing a 200 watt light radiating at 16um in a room with a 400 watt light at 0.2um requires me to know what in the room might hold the energy from the 16um wavelength. What in that room might cause faster escape of heat from the wave length. If the room holds nothing to hold that heat, no change will be seen. Just like our oceans are incapable of absorbing heat radiated at that wavelength.

 

[Billy_Bob]

An Easy bake oven for kids.

my daughter and a granddaughter had one. Great invention.

So are you convinced now? A 60w bulb warming a room temp toy enough to bake batter?

dude, a great idea. it doesn't make your claim about anything. All it is is a neat invention.

?????

It totally refutes your statement that a light bulb can't increase the temperature of a room.

Ian, Ian, Ian,
So, ambient temperature in a room is around 70 degrees F. What do you believe the temperature is of a 60 watt light bulb? 200 degrees F? Why wouldn't it warm the room?

It's still a neat invention!

They forget the mass they are trying to warm and how that mass reacts to the wavelength trying to heat it.

 

[Crick]

They forget the mass they are trying to warm and how that mass reacts to the wavelength trying to heat it.

Oh, Mr Physicist, please explain the relationship between mass and wavelength.

 

[IanC]

Are you actually suggesting that S-B says the 200W light WILL cool it?

I don't believe the 200W light will make the 400W environment any warmer.

Hahahaha, why don't you go out your hand really close to an incandescent light bulb. Now turn it on. Feel the coolness?

Hahahaha. You imbeciles give morons a bad name.

A 400 hundred watt environment implies thermal balance. Placing a 200 watt light where the 400 watt light was will result in a negative imbalance and cooling.

Placing a 200 watt light radiating at 16um in a room with a 400 watt light at 0.2um requires me to know what in the room might hold the energy from the 16um wavelength. What in that room might cause faster escape of heat from the wave length. If the room holds nothing to hold that heat, no change will be seen. Just like our oceans are incapable of absorbing heat radiated at that wavelength.

I don't think we will ever get anywhere because there are retards here who cannot discern the difference between thermal redistribution of energy already in place, and the addition of extra energy.

A room at 16C is radiating 400w in all directions but there is no change because everything is also absorbing 400w.

A 200w lamp is ADDING 200w. The enclosure of the 200w source can be a wide range of temps but all of them are higher than the surrounding room. The room itself will warm as the lamp continues to add energy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Are you actually suggesting that S-B says the 200W light WILL cool it?

I don't believe the 200W light will make the 400W environment any warmer.

Hahahaha, why don't you go out your hand really close to an incandescent light bulb. Now turn it on. Feel the coolness?

Hahahaha. You imbeciles give morons a bad name.

A 400 hundred watt environment implies thermal balance. Placing a 200 watt light where the 400 watt light was will result in a negative imbalance and cooling.

Placing a 200 watt light radiating at 16um in a room with a 400 watt light at 0.2um requires me to know what in the room might hold the energy from the 16um wavelength. What in that room might cause faster escape of heat from the wave length. If the room holds nothing to hold that heat, no change will be seen. Just like our oceans are incapable of absorbing heat radiated at that wavelength.

I don't think we will ever get anywhere because there are retards here who cannot discern the difference between thermal redistribution of energy already in place, and the addition of extra energy.

A room at 16C is radiating 400w in all directions but there is no change because everything is also absorbing 400w.

A 200w lamp is ADDING 200w. The enclosure of the 200w source can be a wide range of temps but all of them are higher than the surrounding room. The room itself will warm as the lamp continues to add energy.

wavelength of the energy determines what the mass can do with it. Like sea water, which does not allow absorption below 10um. thus the surface evaporates and cools never allowing penetration of the mass.

 

[Crick]

Are you actually suggesting that S-B says the 200W light WILL cool it?

I don't believe the 200W light will make the 400W environment any warmer.

Hahahaha, why don't you go out your hand really close to an incandescent light bulb. Now turn it on. Feel the coolness?

Hahahaha. You imbeciles give morons a bad name.

A 400 hundred watt environment implies thermal balance. Placing a 200 watt light where the 400 watt light was will result in a negative imbalance and cooling.

Placing a 200 watt light radiating at 16um in a room with a 400 watt light at 0.2um requires me to know what in the room might hold the energy from the 16um wavelength. What in that room might cause faster escape of heat from the wave length. If the room holds nothing to hold that heat, no change will be seen. Just like our oceans are incapable of absorbing heat radiated at that wavelength.

I don't think we will ever get anywhere because there are retards here who cannot discern the difference between thermal redistribution of energy already in place, and the addition of extra energy.

A room at 16C is radiating 400w in all directions but there is no change because everything is also absorbing 400w.

A 200w lamp is ADDING 200w. The enclosure of the 200w source can be a wide range of temps but all of them are higher than the surrounding room. The room itself will warm as the lamp continues to add energy.

wavelength of the energy determines what the mass can do with it. Like sea water, which does not allow absorption below 10um. thus the surface evaporates and cools never allowing penetration of the mass.

Your in the wrong thread with this response. So... are you suggesting the ocean's absorption characteristics are based on its mass?

 

[SSDD]

I don't believe the 200W light will make the 400W environment any warmer.

Hahahaha, why don't you go out your hand really close to an incandescent light bulb. Now turn it on. Feel the coolness?

Hahahaha. You imbeciles give morons a bad name.

A 400 hundred watt environment implies thermal balance. Placing a 200 watt light where the 400 watt light was will result in a negative imbalance and cooling.

Placing a 200 watt light radiating at 16um in a room with a 400 watt light at 0.2um requires me to know what in the room might hold the energy from the 16um wavelength. What in that room might cause faster escape of heat from the wave length. If the room holds nothing to hold that heat, no change will be seen. Just like our oceans are incapable of absorbing heat radiated at that wavelength.

I don't think we will ever get anywhere because there are retards here who cannot discern the difference between thermal redistribution of energy already in place, and the addition of extra energy.

A room at 16C is radiating 400w in all directions but there is no change because everything is also absorbing 400w.

A 200w lamp is ADDING 200w. The enclosure of the 200w source can be a wide range of temps but all of them are higher than the surrounding room. The room itself will warm as the lamp continues to add energy.

wavelength of the energy determines what the mass can do with it. Like sea water, which does not allow absorption below 10um. thus the surface evaporates and cools never allowing penetration of the mass.

Your in the wrong thread with this response. So... are you suggesting the ocean's absorption characteristics are based on its mass?

And you are in the wrong thread...this one is about NOAA cooking the books...

 

[Crick]

I was talking to Billy Bob, whose comments about mass, seawater, 10 um, etc, are in the wrong thread.