Warmest March on record according to the Japanese Meteorological Agency

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

The SB law describes a one way energy movement

Where?

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

You said radiation, I said SB. Did you actually lose IQ points during your absence?

But that isn't really what we are talking about here. You seem scared to bring yourself to say what you think here.

I am not scared to point out your idiocy.

You gave no answer to my question...

Try reading for comprehension.

clearly you are afraid of the subject matter

Your confusion about photons, waves, the SB Law and back radiation do not made me afraid at all. And as I said, it makes me laugh.

 

[SSDD]

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

Really?... Then you should have no problem at all providing an observed, measured example of energy moving from cool to warm at ambient temperature with no work having been done to facilitate the movement. Lets see it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

We cannot build nukes anywhere as nearly as quickly as we can build wind and solar.

I was talking about reliable, large scale power. Not expensive, unreliable wind and solar.

Nukes are a loser because of the cost and the waste.

Why do they cost so much and why do you feel waste is an issue?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Really?... Then you should have no problem at all providing an observed, measured example of energy moving from cool to warm at ambient temperature with no work having been done to facilitate the movement. Lets see it.

Or you could show where the Stefan-Boltzmann Law says anything about direction.

 

[SSDD]

Where?

Been through that already...sorry you still can't differentiate between a 1 way and a 2 way equation. Not the topic though...You are dodging.

You said radiation, I said SB. Did you actually lose IQ points during your absence?

Still dodging...why is that?

I am not scared to point out your idiocy.

Still dodging...and still with the defense mechanism.

Try reading for comprehension.

Still dodging...and sarcasm is really not an adequate defense.

Your confusion about photons, waves, the SB Law and back radiation do not made me afraid at all. And as I said, it makes me laugh.

Still dodging...new behavior for you. What's the problem. Do you or don't you think that energy can move from a cool object to a warm object via conduction? Easy question...why so hesitant. And to resort to lying that you have answered when all one need do is review your posts to see that you haven't really highlights your trepidation here.

Can't manage a yes or no answer to a yes or no question? Cleary you aren't very sure of yourself here. Why?

 

[SSDD]

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

Really?... Then you should have no problem at all providing an observed, measured example of energy moving from cool to warm at ambient temperature with no work having been done to facilitate the movement. Lets see it.

Or you could show where the Stefan-Boltzmann Law says anything about direction.

Already have..but will gladly provide it again after you answer my question with a simple yes or no answer.

 

[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.

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.

Sure thing olfraud. The US had the most extensive weather station network compared to the rest of the world. But, interestingly enough...where they DID keep records the story is the same. The 1930's were warm.

So, just like you all lie and claim that the MWP was European only (while never being able to come up with a explanation how the physics of that would work) but when it is looked for it is found at any location on the planet....when you look at the local records they too show that the 1930's were warmer than the 2000's.

"Notably WARM summer: fifth warmest of the century & ranking (as of 2013) ninth in the entire series. Regarded as extending from Jun through to September: The CET values for each month, with anomalies (rel. to 1961-90 averages) were: Jun:15.6(+1.4), Jul:17.8(+1.7), Aug:17.6(+1.8), Sep:14.9(+1.3)."

One of the WARMEST winters (by CET) in the series which began in 1659. Up to 2013/14, rank=9 Value=6.13; Dec=8.1, Jan=4.5, Feb=5.8 (Others: 1686, 1796, 1834, 1869, 1975, 1989, 1990 and 2007.)

An exceptionally DRY spell over England & Wales, with an anomaly of roughly 30% across the three months. April, with a total of just 7 mm, was the DRIEST such-named month in that series, and the fifth-DRIEST any-named month (last updated 2013). It was even drier along parts of the English south coast; for example, at Poole (Dorset), no rain was recorded at all in April, and at Mayflower Park, Southampton, just 0.8 mm of RAIN was logged this month. (EWP, DWxB). In Scotland, not so dry, with anomalies around 70%.
Dry springs can be notably chilly, but this spring included the second-WARMEST March in the CET record [as of 2014]. With a value of 9.1degC, this represented an anomaly of around +4C on the long-term average, and was only just pipped to 'top spot' by 1957, with a value of 9.2degC. Despite the undoubted warming of the lower troposphere in recent years, no March since this latter date has come close to equalling or exceeding those values. (CET)

1900 to 1949 events.

 

[SSDD]

Sure thing olfraud. The US had the most extensive weather station network compared to the rest of the world. But, interestingly enough...where they DID keep records the story is the same. The 1930's were warm.

So, just like you all lie and claim that the MWP was European only (while never being able to come up with a explanation how the physics of that would work) but when it is looked for it is found at any location on the planet....when you look at the local records they too show that the 1930's were warmer than the 2000's.

Interesting how that local european MWP seems to show up all over the world and is strongly evidenced in the Vostok Ice cores. How much further from europe can you get than antarctica?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where?

Been through that already...sorry you still can't differentiate between a 1 way and a 2 way equation. Not the topic though...You are dodging.

You said radiation, I said SB. Did you actually lose IQ points during your absence?

Still dodging...why is that?

I am not scared to point out your idiocy.

Still dodging...and still with the defense mechanism.

Try reading for comprehension.

Still dodging...and sarcasm is really not an adequate defense.

Your confusion about photons, waves, the SB Law and back radiation do not made me afraid at all. And as I said, it makes me laugh.

Still dodging...new behavior for you. What's the problem. Do you or don't you think that energy can move from a cool object to a warm object via conduction? Easy question...why so hesitant. And to resort to lying that you have answered when all one need do is review your posts to see that you haven't really highlights your trepidation here.

Can't manage a yes or no answer to a yes or no question? Cleary you aren't very sure of yourself here. Why?

Do you or don't you think that energy can move from a cool object to a warm object via conduction?

I answered up thread.

So no luck finding a direction in SB?

The Stefan–Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan's law, describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body radiant exitance or emissive power),

, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T:

Can you point out where direction is in that definition?

 

[Old Rocks]

1934 is the hottest year on record

Response: The point of the graph is to show the miniscule difference before and after the "Y2K correction". The reason it only showed the last 30 years was because if you display an even longer period, the difference is even harder to detect. Here is the same data going back to 1880 (again courtesy of Tamino):



The difference between the temperature record before the Y2K correction (red dots) and after the correction (black diamonds) is insignificant anytime before 2000 and still barely noticeable after 2000. The change has had practically no detectable impact on the global warming trend over the past 30 years. As for the zero point, temperature anomaly graphs take an average over a specified period (eg - 1960 to 1990) - the temperature anomaly is the difference from this average. The period selected is arbitrary (GISS and CRU use different time periods) as the trend will be the same regardless.

1934 does not look that impressive on a global scale. Certainly not anywhere near the present temperatures.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Look at this nino breaking out!

 

[SSDD]

I answered up thread.

Actually, you didn't...you danced around the question and gave a weasel answer..another defense mechanism... So I am guessing that you don't think back conduction can happen but just can't bring yourself to actually say it....another defense mechanism. So I will continue on the guess than you don't think back conduction can happen but are just to timid to say it.

That being said, if a photon traveling at the speed of light has no distance to travel because of spatial length being infinitely contracted (relativity) and gets there in no time because infinite time dilation, how is energy transfer via radiation any different from energy transfer via conduction. A photon, according to science comes into existence traveling at the speed of light and therefore is already in contact with its destination. Energy won't conduct from cool to warm if the bodies are in physical contact and according to science, photons are already in contact with their destination when they come into existence.

It is unfortunate that you are unable to wrap your mind around this but if you are going to believe in photons, then you must try and let them exist in their own reference frame and stop trying to force them into yours. You envision photons as tiny little things zooming along very fast but traveling some distance and taking some time to get there....thinking of them in those terms is a failure on your part. From the photon's point of view, it is traveling no distance and taking no time to get there...it is essentially in physical contact with its destination from the time it comes into existence. No back conduction....no back radiation because they are essentially the same thing.

So now, are you going to deny relativity in order to make the idiotic claim that a photon must somehow know what it is like where it is going rather than accept relativity and admit that a photon knows what its destination is like because it is already there?

I also can't help but notice that Ian hasn't jumped in here to help you out. He typically can't resist these discussions. Could it be that he is actually thinking rather than just believing as you are doing? Could it be that he is trying to allow a photon its own perspective rather than trying to make it conform to his? What are the ramifications to energy transfer if you allow a photon its on perspective rather than trying to jam it into your own?

So no luck finding a direction in SB?

.

No luck necessary.

The Stefan–Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan's law, describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body radiant exitance or emissive power),

, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T:

Can you point out where direction is in that definition?

As usual, you hide your lie behind a bit of truth. You do show the law written in the form for thermal energy being radiated by an actual black body...but as you know, or perhaps you don't...the law is written in different forms for different situations. We are talking about a radiator that is not a black body and the radiator is radiating into its cooler surroundings. In that situation (otherwise known as the real world) the equation takes the form of:

which just happens to be the form used in physics for the hard sciences texts.

That equation describes a one way energy transfer between a radiator and its cooler surroundings. If the equation were describing a two way energy transfer between a radiator and its cooler surroundings and then back to the radiator, the equation would take the form of:

So let the denying begin....first deny relativity and claim that a photon must spend some time traveling a distance to its destination and then deny that equations in physics describe things that are happening in the physical world and in order to describe different things, the equation must be altered to make the description accurate. Deny it all toddster...that's what believers do when their beliefs are challenged.

 

[Crick]

What a fucking idiot

 

[Muhammed]

They then completely ignore the more accurate satellite data which says that they are lying.

The last 2 satellites going to join the A-train crashed and burned.

I seriously doubt that's just a coincidence.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I answered up thread.

Actually, you didn't...you danced around the question and gave a weasel answer..another defense mechanism... So I am guessing that you don't think back conduction can happen but just can't bring yourself to actually say it....another defense mechanism. So I will continue on the guess than you don't think back conduction can happen but are just to timid to say it.

That being said, if a photon traveling at the speed of light has no distance to travel because of spatial length being infinitely contracted (relativity) and gets there in no time because infinite time dilation, how is energy transfer via radiation any different from energy transfer via conduction. A photon, according to science comes into existence traveling at the speed of light and therefore is already in contact with its destination. Energy won't conduct from cool to warm if the bodies are in physical contact and according to science, photons are already in contact with their destination when they come into existence.

It is unfortunate that you are unable to wrap your mind around this but if you are going to believe in photons, then you must try and let them exist in their own reference frame and stop trying to force them into yours. You envision photons as tiny little things zooming along very fast but traveling some distance and taking some time to get there....thinking of them in those terms is a failure on your part. From the photon's point of view, it is traveling no distance and taking no time to get there...it is essentially in physical contact with its destination from the time it comes into existence. No back conduction....no back radiation because they are essentially the same thing.

So now, are you going to deny relativity in order to make the idiotic claim that a photon must somehow know what it is like where it is going rather than accept relativity and admit that a photon knows what its destination is like because it is already there?

I also can't help but notice that Ian hasn't jumped in here to help you out. He typically can't resist these discussions. Could it be that he is actually thinking rather than just believing as you are doing? Could it be that he is trying to allow a photon its own perspective rather than trying to make it conform to his? What are the ramifications to energy transfer if you allow a photon its on perspective rather than trying to jam it into your own?

So no luck finding a direction in SB?

.

No luck necessary.

The Stefan–Boltzmann law, also known as Stefan's law, describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body radiant exitance or emissive power),

, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T:

Can you point out where direction is in that definition?

As usual, you hide your lie behind a bit of truth. You do show the law written in the form for thermal energy being radiated by an actual black body...but as you know, or perhaps you don't...the law is written in different forms for different situations. We are talking about a radiator that is not a black body and the radiator is radiating into its cooler surroundings. In that situation (otherwise known as the real world) the equation takes the form of:

which just happens to be the form used in physics for the hard sciences texts.

That equation describes a one way energy transfer between a radiator and its cooler surroundings. If the equation were describing a two way energy transfer between a radiator and its cooler surroundings and then back to the radiator, the equation would take the form of:

So let the denying begin....first deny relativity and claim that a photon must spend some time traveling a distance to its destination and then deny that equations in physics describe things that are happening in the physical world and in order to describe different things, the equation must be altered to make the description accurate. Deny it all toddster...that's what believers do when their beliefs are challenged.

Energy won't conduct from cool to warm if the bodies are in physical contact

Explain how energy is conducted from hot to cold. And then why it won't conduct from cold to hot. Explain in your own words. Then I'll point out your confusion.

and gets there in no time because infinite time dilation,

Just because the photon doesn't "age", doesn't mean it can predict the future.

You envision photons as tiny little things zooming along very fast but traveling some distance and taking some time to get there

It is true that photons leaving the surface of the sun take over 8 minutes to reach the Earth. I'd call that some time.

You do show the law written in the form for thermal energy being radiated by an actual black body

And isn't it interesting that the law shows they radiate, with no reference to direction.

the law is written in different forms for different situations.

When you find one that mentions direction, be sure to let me know.

That equation describes a one way energy transfer between a radiator and its cooler surroundings.

Then why doesn't the equation I posted come with a caveat, "Unless a warmer object is nearby (nearby being up to billions of light years away, because photons don't experience time. LOL!)"

So let the denying begin....

I deny your confused ramblings are the real explanation.

first deny relativity

Why would I do that?

and claim that a photon must spend some time traveling a distance to its destination

I'd say that's a more accurate description than saying it takes no time for them to travel to their destination.

We could talk about waves, instead of photons.
Maybe you could explain how the magic waves take the temperature of their destination, before they decide if they will propagate in that direction?
Should be good for another laugh.

 

[mamooth]

The last 2 satellites going to join the A-train crashed and burned.

I seriously doubt that's just a coincidence.

OCO-2 crashed? GCOM-W1 crashed? Who knew?

It's not a coincidence that you tried to peddle such a crazy conspiracy theory. After all, if someone fact-checks, it's impossible for them to get sucked into the denier cult. Your cult masters fed you a fable, and instead of fact-checking, you simply chose to believe it with all your heart.

 

[Muhammed]

The last 2 satellites going to join the A-train crashed and burned.

I seriously doubt that's just a coincidence.

OCO-2 crashed? GCOM-W1 crashed? Who knew?

It's not a coincidence that you tried to peddle such a crazy conspiracy theory. After all, if someone fact-checks, it's impossible for them to get sucked into the denier cult. Your cult masters fed you a fable, and instead of fact-checking, you simply chose to believe it with all your heart.

Whatever, so which ones crashed? Was it the ones that were supoosed to terrify the populce? The sky is falling global warming idiotic bullshit?

And what difference does it make?

Every adequately informed person already knows the Global Warrming bullshit was debunked long ago.

Google "wikilinks, climategate". Educate yourself or remain ignorant. It's your choice. I've always chose enlightenment over ignorance. I advise the rest of you to do the same.

 

[mamooth]

So satellites were supposed to terrify the populace?

You're a cult fruit loop. You may not understand that, but rest assured that everyone else does.

 

[jc456]

The last 2 satellites going to join the A-train crashed and burned.

I seriously doubt that's just a coincidence.

OCO-2 crashed? GCOM-W1 crashed? Who knew?

It's not a coincidence that you tried to peddle such a crazy conspiracy theory. After all, if someone fact-checks, it's impossible for them to get sucked into the denier cult. Your cult masters fed you a fable, and instead of fact-checking, you simply chose to believe it with all your heart.

Whatever, so which ones crashed? Was it the ones that were supoosed to terrify the populce? The sky is falling global warming idiotic bullshit?

And what difference does it make?

Every adequately informed person already knows the Global Warrming bullshit was debunked long ago.

Google "wikilinks, climategate". Educate yourself or remain ignorant. It's your choice. I've always chose enlightenment over ignorance. I advise the rest of you to do the same.

here's a link to read up on the satellites that crashed. They were old ones. However, their debris is headed toward those climate satellites. Link: Two Satellites crash in space the A-Train. Poll Results.

 

[skookerasbil]

nobody is caring about an average of 1/2 a degree. And in the last 18 years, the trend is cooler anyway........no getting around it.

Only the alarmist k00ks think this is news.