Warmest March on record according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency

[SSDD]

It is a straight forward term....surely you can grasp it.

Excellent! Then you can easily explain what you feel it is.

Strange, you seem to know what back radiation is and believe in it wholeheartedly....do you believe that energy moves from cool to warm if the two bodies are in physical contact? Are you really unable to grasp what might be meant by back conduction as it relates to a conversation about back radiation? Geez guy...are you that timid?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is a straight forward term....surely you can grasp it.

Excellent! Then you can easily explain what you feel it is.

Strange, you seem to know what back radiation is and believe in it wholeheartedly....do you believe that energy moves from cool to warm if the two bodies are in physical contact? Are you really unable to grasp what might be meant by back conduction as it relates to a conversation about back radiation? Geez guy...are you that timid?

Strange, you seem to know what back radiation is and believe in it wholeheartedly

I believe in radiation. Front...back...whatever.
Why don't you believe in back radiation?

Are you really unable to grasp what might be meant by back conduction

I've never heard of it. Sounds like something a moron invented.
Was it you?

 

[SSDD]

I believe in radiation. Front...back...whatever.
Why don't you believe in back radiation?

You are becoming very tiring and tedious. My position is well known and I have stated it to you numerous times. No memory for detail? Neither heat nor energy will move from cool to warm without some work having been done to accomplish the movement.

I've never heard of it. Sounds like something a moron invented.

Sounds like a failure on your part.....seems that you know you have been wrong and just don't want to admit it. If you believe that energy can radiate from cool to warm, it seems that you must also believe that energy can move from a cool body to a warm body if they are in physical contact...conduction, not radiation. Do you believe that energy can be conducted from a cool body to a warm body. Are you afraid to answer?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I believe in radiation. Front...back...whatever.
Why don't you believe in back radiation?

You are becoming very tiring and tedious. My position is well known and I have stated it to you numerous times. No memory for detail? Neither heat nor energy will move from cool to warm without some work having been done to accomplish the movement.

I've never heard of it. Sounds like something a moron invented.

Sounds like a failure on your part.....seems that you know you have been wrong and just don't want to admit it. If you believe that energy can radiate from cool to warm, it seems that you must also believe that energy can move from a cool body to a warm body if they are in physical contact...conduction, not radiation. Do you believe that energy can be conducted from a cool body to a warm body. Are you afraid to answer?

My position is well known

And I laugh everytime I think about it.

Sounds like a failure on your part.....

Failure to hear about this particular bit of your silliness was no great loss.

If you believe that energy can radiate from cool to warm

You mean my belief in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?

Do you believe that energy can be conducted from a cool body to a warm body.

Will the molecular vibrations of a cooler body cause a warmer body to increase its temperature? Of course not.
Do you feel that means the molecules of the cooler body cease vibrating when they touch that warmer body? Because that seems to be what you feel happens to bodies that radiate.

 

[SSDD]

And I laugh everytime I think about it.

Laughing is all you can do. You certainly haven't been able to put up any rational argument against it. Laughter and sarcasm are defense measures in a debate...you do them when you have no actual rebuttal.

Failure to hear about this particular bit of your silliness was no great loss.

Again with the defense mechanism...no actual argument. Are you going to deny the Lorentz equations apply to photons or are you going to deny relativity?

You mean my belief in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?

Clearly we are over your head here...SB applies to radiation...we are talking about conduction here. Do you believe that energy can conduct from cool to warm in the same way you believe energy can radiate from cool to warm? Why are you afraid to answer Toddster?

Will the molecular vibrations of a cooler body cause a warmer body to increase its temperature? Of course not.

At this point, I can only guess that you don't know what conduction is. We are talking about energy transfer here. Do you believe that energy can transfer from cool to warm via conduction? Simple question to answer, why are you having such a hard time? Why all the tiptoeing around the actual question?

Do you feel that means the molecules of the cooler body cease vibrating when they touch that warmer body? Because that seems to be what you feel happens to bodies that radiate.

[/quote]

Still dancing. Conduction is a means of energy transfer between bodies that are in direct contact....energy transfer from molecule to molecule by direct contact. Do you believe that energy can transfer from a cool object to a warm object via conduction? You are embarrassing yourself here Toddster. It is a simple yes / no question....what's the problem.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And I laugh everytime I think about it.

Laughing is all you can do. You certainly haven't been able to put up any rational argument against it. Laughter and sarcasm are defense measures in a debate...you do them when you have no actual rebuttal.

Failure to hear about this particular bit of your silliness was no great loss.

Again with the defense mechanism...no actual argument. Are you going to deny the Lorentz equations apply to photons or are you going to deny relativity?

You mean my belief in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?

Clearly we are over your head here...SB applies to radiation...we are talking about conduction here. Do you believe that energy can conduct from cool to warm in the same way you believe energy can radiate from cool to warm? Why are you afraid to answer Toddster?

Will the molecular vibrations of a cooler body cause a warmer body to increase its temperature? Of course not.

At this point, I can only guess that you don't know what conduction is. We are talking about energy transfer here. Do you believe that energy can transfer from cool to warm via conduction? Simple question to answer, why are you having such a hard time? Why all the tiptoeing around the actual question?

Do you feel that means the molecules of the cooler body cease vibrating when they touch that warmer body? Because that seems to be what you feel happens to bodies that radiate.

Still dancing. Conduction is a means of energy transfer between bodies that are in direct contact....energy transfer from molecule to molecule by direct contact. Do you believe that energy can transfer from a cool object to a warm object via conduction? You are embarrassing yourself here Toddster. It is a simple yes / no question....what's the problem.[/QUOTE]


If you believe that energy can radiate from cool to warm

You mean my belief in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?

Clearly we are over your head here...SB applies to radiation...we are talking about conduction here.

Is that why you said radiate and I responded to radiate? Idiot.

Simple question to answer, why are you having such a hard time?

I gave a simple answer. English must not be your first language.

Laughter and sarcasm are defense measures in a debate

They are also the best response to your idiocy.

 

[Andylusion]

We just had record cold all winter long. Let's pick out one month, isolate it from the rest of the data, and proclaim the sky is falling.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Warmest March on record according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency

http://ds.data.jma.g...mp/mar_wld.html

The monthly anomaly of the global average surface temperature in March 2015 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.31°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.76°C above the 20th century average), and was the warmest since 1891. On a longer time scale, global average surface temperatures have risen at a rate of about 0.83°C per century.

Japan would be more truthful? With all that honor and killing themselves over dishonor. Right???

....and your "theory" states that the 2PPM of CO2 added to the atmosphere is responsible, right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Warmest March on record according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency

http://ds.data.jma.g...mp/mar_wld.html

The monthly anomaly of the global average surface temperature in March 2015 (i.e. the average of the near-surface air temperature over land and the SST) was +0.31°C above the 1981-2010 average (+0.76°C above the 20th century average), and was the warmest since 1891. On a longer time scale, global average surface temperatures have risen at a rate of about 0.83°C per century.

Japan would be more truthful? With all that honor and killing themselves over dishonor. Right???

....and your "theory" states that the 2PPM of CO2 added to the atmosphere is responsible, right?

His theory states that CO2 will kill us all, but greens still won't support nuclear power.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK. Let the economics decide, and let the people running the nuke plants carry their own insurance. Same for building them. In the mean time, the people building the wind and PV sites do just that. Coal is losing out to natural gas, wind, and solar. Soon, natural gas will be losing out to wind, solar, and geothermal.

 

[Old Rocks]

We just had record cold all winter long. Let's pick out one month, isolate it from the rest of the data, and proclaim the sky is falling.

Really? We just had a record warm winter, so the whole world must have also.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

OK. Let the economics decide, and let the people running the nuke plants carry their own insurance. Same for building them. In the mean time, the people building the wind and PV sites do just that. Coal is losing out to natural gas, wind, and solar. Soon, natural gas will be losing out to wind, solar, and geothermal.

Let the economics decide, and let the people running the nuke plants carry their own insurance.

You don't want to spend government money on the only reliable CO2-free energy source we can add in huge amounts now? I guess you're not so scared of global warming....err...climate change.

 

[SSDD]

You mean my belief in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?

The SB law describes a one way energy movement from a black body radiating into a vacuum...a colder vacuum. But that isn't really what we are talking about here. You seem scared to bring yourself to say what you think here. What's the matter, can't find anyone to tell you what to believe?

Is that why you said radiate and I responded to radiate? Idiot.

Read again...clearly you are not reading for comprehension...or you just can't read. I said:

" it seems that you must also believe that energy can move from a cool body to a warm body if they are in physical contact...conduction, not radiation."

Idiot.

I gave a simple answer. English must not be your first language.

You gave no answer to my question...you clumsily danced around the question. Again, what's the problem. No one told you what to believe yet?

Do you think energy can conduct from a cold object to a warm object if they are in physical contact.

They are also the best response to your idiocy.

Again with the defense mechanism...clearly you are afraid of the subject matter and have nothing but sarcasm and name calling at this point. You can't even say whether you believe back conduction happens. The needle on the respect-o-meter is falling rapidly. Feeling fragile Toddster?

 

[Old Rocks]

We cannot build nukes anywhere as nearly as quickly as we can build wind and solar. Not only that, but with the grid scale batteries, both are 24/7. Nukes are a loser because of the cost and the waste.

 

[Old Rocks]

SSDD, go peddle your insanity somewhere there are totally ignorant people. Not even the deniers here buy your nonsense.

 

[SSDD]

OK. Let the economics decide, and let the people running the nuke plants carry their own insurance. Same for building them. In the mean time, the people building the wind and PV sites do just that. Coal is losing out to natural gas, wind, and solar. Soon, natural gas will be losing out to wind, solar, and geothermal.

Talk to germany about the viability of renewables. Their energy bills are double what ours are and damned near a million poor people had their power cut off last winter because they could't afford it. Why do you greens hate poor people so much....every damned plan you come up with invariably hurts the people who can least afford it most.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD, go peddle your insanity somewhere there are totally ignorant people. Not even the deniers here buy your nonsense.

No actual rebuttal....not to worry....you are the last person I would expect to provide one. Carry on with your cultish lies, fabrications, and cherry picking.....and losing.

 

[westwall]

All data sets support the warming since the 1970's. That is a fact...Learn to accept it.

You need to go back to 1850 Matthew. And, most of the warming occurred over 50 years ago. No matter what the data manipulators claim the 1930's were far warmer than the present day with far more days over the 100 degree mark than any decade since.

 

[Old Rocks]

All the physicists in the world have already rebutted your nonsense, I don't need to even try.

 

[Old Rocks]

All data sets support the warming since the 1970's. That is a fact...Learn to accept it.

You need to go back to 1850 Matthew. And, most of the warming occurred over 50 years ago. No matter what the data manipulators claim the 1930's were far warmer than the present day with far more days over the 100 degree mark than any decade since.

Like hell. Only in the US was the '30's that warm. You continue to by a lying fuck. By your thinking, January and February were record cold months worldwide because the Eastern US was cold.

1934 is the hottest year on record

Climate Myth...
1934 - hottest year on record
Steve McIntyre noticed a strange discontinuity in US temperature data, occurring around January 2000. McIntyre notified NASA which acknowledged the problem as an 'oversight' that would be fixed in the next data refresh. As a result, "The warmest year on US record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place." (Daily Tech).



The year 1934 was a very hot year in the United States, ranking fourth behind 2012, 2006, and 1998. However, global warming takes into account temperatures over the entire planet. The U.S.'s land area accounts for only 2% of the earth's total surface area. Despite the U.S. heat in 1934, the year was not so hot over the rest of the planet, and is barely holding onto a place in the hottest 50 years in the global rankings (today it ranks 49th).

Climate change skeptics like to point to 1934 in the U.S. as proof that recent hot years are not unusual. However, this is another example of "cherry-picking" a single fact that supports a claim, while ignoring the rest of the data. Globally, the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998, with 2005 and 2010 as the hottest.

The fact that there were hot years in some parts of the world in the past is not an argument against climate change. There will always be regional temperature variations as well as variations from year to year. These happened in the past, and they will continue. The problem with climate change is that on average, when looking at the entire world, the long term trend shows an unmistakable increase in global surface temperatures, in a way that is likely to dramatically alter the planet.