To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[jc456]

No. If you're going to show what the trend is since 1998, you don't include data from 1978. That's basic math, not "cherry picking."

That's nice. But nobody else has any interest in showing the "trend since 1998", so nobody cares. All the honest people want to show the long-term trend, not something cherrypicked to start at a year convenient to you.

Oh, if you extended that graph to right now, it would be warmer than 1998. So that's another way that your cherrypick fails.

Anyone whose interested in the truth would want to know that the trend since 1998 is cooling, not warming. That blows all your hocus-pocus theories out of the water.

It isn't warmer right now than 1998.

And their own IPCC group admitted it. That trumps any further discussion about CO2. Period

 

[jc456]

Crick, get out a pad and write down your last 8 posts, see if you can make any sense out of your Hot Spot/No Hot Spot Controversy that's raging in your mind

First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is
First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is

Fuck you Frank. You are just too stupid to deal with. I might as well be talking to my dog.

Your dog would call you a liar. See it's posted dude, why not just accept your flip.

 

[jc456]

The above data shows no warming since 1998. You dishonestly included a line which shows the average since 1978.

So what you're saying is your stupid cult theory fails unless you flagrantly and dishonestly cherrypick, like you just demanded.

The rational and honest people see what sort of scam you're trying to pull. Doing so might earn you brownie points with your fellow cultists, but it's not fooling anyone else.

Hahahaha, see the IPCC agrees with us. So?

 

[mamooth]

It isn't warmer right now than 1998.

Bri, if you're that staggeringly ignorant of the basic science, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

Even hardcore deniers Spencer and Christy say you're wrong.

February Hottest Month Ever in the Satellite Temperature Record: Global Temperature Trend Update
---
When compared to seasonal norms, the month of February was the hottest month ever in the satellite temperature record. University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer report satellite temperature data each month as measured against the 30-year average of 1981 through 2010.
---

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It isn't warmer right now than 1998.

Bri, if you're that staggeringly ignorant of the basic science, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

Even hardcore deniers Spencer and Christy say you're wrong.

February Hottest Month Ever in the Satellite Temperature Record: Global Temperature Trend Update
---
When compared to seasonal norms, the month of February was the hottest month ever in the satellite temperature record. University of Alabama in Huntsville climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer report satellite temperature data each month as measured against the 30-year average of 1981 through 2010.
---

"By a statistically significant amount, February 2016 was the warmest month in the satellite temperature record.... Interestingly, however, that record might have as much to do with an extraordinarily warm month in the Arctic as it does with warming caused by the El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event."

 

[mamooth]

And 1998 was also a strong El Nino. So Frank says we count the 1998 El Nino year, but don't count the 2016 El Nino year.

Frank, try to be a little less blatant with your dishonest hypocrisy, eh?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And 1998 was also a strong El Nino. So Frank says we count the 1998 El Nino year, but don't count the 2016 El Nino year.

Frank, try to be a little less blatant with your dishonest hypocrisy, eh?

I didn't "say" it, that was from the unread article you linked to

 

[Wuwei]

And this evidence of a scam and of altered data... is where, Frank?

Here's some:

Anybody can post graphs. Graphs are never evidence unless you quote your source. Blogs are not sources. What is your scientific source.

NASA is the source of both graphs.

That isn't a link. That could have still come from a butchered blog. I would like to see the source of the graphs. If you don't have a linked source, the graphs mean nothing.

 

[Crick]

They are also just US temps. US temps have not mirrored global trends particularly well. I found this from Karl et al 2015 to be good deal more informative.

Look at the lower curve, teal-colored line. "WITHOUT CORRECTIONS".

Globally, temperature adjustments have REDUCED 20th century warming.

Given Karl's employer, I would assume these data come from the GISS dataset.

 

[bripat9643]

And this evidence of a scam and of altered data... is where, Frank?

Here's some:

Anybody can post graphs. Graphs are never evidence unless you quote your source. Blogs are not sources. What is your scientific source.

NASA is the source of both graphs.

That isn't a link. That could have still come from a butchered blog. I would like to see the source of the graphs. If you don't have a linked source, the graphs mean nothing.

Both graphs have been plastered all over the internet for years.

 

[Wuwei]

Both graphs have been plastered all over the internet for years.

Can't you do better than that. Lots of crap has been plastered all over the internet for years. Fake moon landing. 9/11 was a US designed operation. The earth is flat.
As it is you are just re-posting fabricated graphs until you can come up with a legitimate link to a source.

 

[bripat9643]

Both graphs have been plastered all over the internet for years.

Can't you do better than that. Lots of crap has been plastered all over the internet for years. Fake moon landing. 9/11 was a US designed operation. The earth is flat.
As it is you are just re-posting fabricated graphs until you can come up with a legitimate link to a source.

Try not to prove that you're an idiot. The fact that NASA is the source has been plastered right along with them.

 

[Wuwei]

Both graphs have been plastered all over the internet for years.

Can't you do better than that. Lots of crap has been plastered all over the internet for years. Fake moon landing. 9/11 was a US designed operation. The earth is flat.
As it is you are just re-posting fabricated graphs until you can come up with a legitimate link to a source.

Try not to prove that you're an idiot. The fact that NASA is the source has been plastered right along with them.

What you are saying is that whoever faked the graph also faked NASA as the source. Try and find the source if you want to disprove that.

Furthermore your graphs do not have NASA written on them.

 

[IanC]

The two GISS graphs are legitimate. They were put together in a comparator by a blog.

 

[Crick]

And what do you believe they show?

 

[Wuwei]

The two GISS graphs are legitimate. They were put together in a comparator by a blog.

So now I'm supposed to take your word for it that they are legitimate? There is no further text in explaining what they are. Are they regional? Global? You are skirting the question just as bripat was doing?

 

[jc456]

The two GISS graphs are legitimate. They were put together in a comparator by a blog.

So now I'm supposed to take your word for it that they are legitimate? There is no further text in explaining what they are. Are they regional? Global? You are skirting the question just as bripat was doing?

well it is an internet board and you certainly are welcome to leave the thread anytime. See generally, someone posts something and one disagrees, one then provides data that will disagree. What it is you disagree with may be more prudent than throwing a tantrum.

 

[Wuwei]

The two GISS graphs are legitimate. They were put together in a comparator by a blog.

So now I'm supposed to take your word for it that they are legitimate? There is no further text in explaining what they are. Are they regional? Global? You are skirting the question just as bripat was doing?

well it is an internet board and you certainly are welcome to leave the thread anytime. See generally, someone posts something and one disagrees, one then provides data that will disagree. What it is you disagree with may be more prudent than throwing a tantrum.

So you have no idea where the graphs came from either. Well that makes three of you.

 

[IanC]

The two GISS graphs are legitimate. They were put together in a comparator by a blog.

So now I'm supposed to take your word for it that they are legitimate? There is no further text in explaining what they are. Are they regional? Global? You are skirting the question just as bripat was doing?

In previous posts you suggested the graphs were fake. I know they are not.

You can either find the obvious legitimate sources, or continue to delude yourself that it some sort of hoax.

I don't particularly care either way.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I totally agree with W's question.

Until those who deny backradiation can come up with an explanation using physics to account for surface temperature being all out of proportion to solar input, then the discussion is useless. And make no mistake, the difference is huge, it is not some small quibble over measuring surface temps or solar input. It is 15C difference, more than enough to turn the Earth into a frozen ice cube.

Ian, sorry for the delay getting to your post. Do you believe that back radiation is absorbed by the surface?

And do you believe back radiation is heat?

I have gone into great depth answering this question on numerous occasions. Do you hope that my answer will change?

Of course radiation from the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface. Where else would it go?

Heat is a property of macroscopic quantities. Warmer matter produces more radiation than cooler matter, hence the overall net transfer of energy is always warmer to cooler.

On the microscopic level, radiation just is. One molecule doesn't have a 'temperature'. Only large groups of molecules have an average kinetic energy which considered it's temperature.

Molecules in close proximity collide with each other, producing blackbody radiation proportional to its temperature.

The blackbody radiation from the surface either escapes to space, or is absorbed by the atmosphere, which warms the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere produces blackbody radiation which either escapes to space, is reabsorbed by the atmosphere, or reaches the surface where it is absorbed.

The equilibrium temperature of the surface is defined by energy input minus energy output. Radiation is part of that equation. While the atmosphere is cooler than the surface, it is much warmer than empty space, therefore it 'gives back' some of the radiation it receives, which keeps the surface warmer than if there were no atmosphere.

Reality is obviously more complex. There are massive heatsinks that are filled with unimaginable energy, eg liquid flowing oceans and gaseous flowing atmosphere.

I don't expect you will understand all this this time because you have failed in the past. But I wish you would try.

thanks for responding.

First, the atmosphere is cooler than the surface, it has been and always will be based on sunlight and the fact the surface absorbs the sun's energy. the earth then radiates what it absorbs back up to the atmosphere, LWIR and that has heat. i.e., When I heat a frying pan on the stove top and turn off the heat source, the pan will radiate heat for some time. It will begin near a constant it was at with the flame and then slowly cool off. The air above the pan does not re-radiate back to the pan to keep it hot, nor does the air make it hot once it cools off. BTW, I know you know I will never believe that occurs. The reason, there just isn't evidence of it occurring, cooler air cannot warm anything warmer than itself. Feel free to post up an experiment that shows me wrong.

As for your back radiation, if there was indeed back radiation, you claim it comes from CO2. Are you sure? Do you have that evidence as well? Come on, you've been following my posts over the years now, you know I have my expectations and to today, there has not been one iota of evidence ever presented that shows the magic power of CO2 gas. I truly wish to see it, cause it sounds way too magical for me.

I have observed clouds at night keep the ground below warmer than if the clouds weren't there in the winter. I've experienced it, I've felt the difference. When the ground is cooler than the cloud the cloud radiates to the surface, it's always been in winter months again when the surface air is cooler than the clouds.

I believe in the bright yellow ball in the sky and its power to heat. I also observe the surface of the earth as it heats up from that source. I also can see the heat radiating upward off of surfaces such as asphalt and cars. yep, I can see it radiate and it is always moving ground up never air down. I also know that the surface can be hotter than the rays hitting my own skin, so indeed the surface material gets very hot, enough to fry an egg.

You have asked me before why I don't believe in back radiation, and my answer is that I don't see it, nor has anyone ever proved it. you've also asked me if I think molecules radiate and I've said yes. Warm to cool is the direction only. I can't help that I believe that, the fact is there isn't evidence and for two years now, no one has presented it.

You nailed it JC... The fact that all matter radiates regardless of temperature can not go opposite the laws of thermal convection/conduction. The higher temperature object will alwasy radiate to the cooler and earths air is generally cooler than the surface.

The reason we do not see a mid-tropospheric hot spot is due to water vapor and the cooler atmosphere. Water in the air is slightly warmer than the surrounding components until it releases its heat to space and return to earth as a droplet.

The AGW theory states that CO2 will retard heat loss of the atmosphere and trap it in the mid troposphere and this must occur above the tropics. The problem is that air mass is very wet, thus the heat is never trapped, it is absorbed by water, it rises and convection releases the LWIR to space. CO2 can not trap water vapor and can not stop convection. Thus the theroy fails.

While so called "back radiation" is just a rewording of known molecular radiation properties for the AGW nutter crowd other items in the atmosphere radiate at the same wave lengths. No one really knows how much is actually attributed to CO2 as they still can not quantify the convection route of escape.