ReinyDays
Gold Member
... but when did we get to see Greta and Naomi wrestle in bikinis? ...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
... but when did we get to see Greta and Naomi wrestle in bikinis? ...
What causes a different "heat outfow" -- weakened GHouse gases or something??
NO. THere will be a build up of heat energy (barring increased CONVECTION losses thru more storms and such) and the RETARDATION of heat to space from GHouse will remain what it is..
Kinda like the "tipping point" adjunct theory of GW... If you TREAT the sun forcing as a CONSTANT -- everything is great... But if you EXCEED the ability to shed excess heat (ENERGY not POWER as a forcing) -- the temperature will rise even IF the forcing power feeding the energy storage is a constant.. (or new HIGHER constant) than it was...
Read your statement again... Not picking on you.. But ask yourself WHY that doesn't apply to the "excess heat" from GW induced "back radiation"..
The difference is, the "back rad" is the INSULATION in the house.. And the sun is your furnace... One is a power source, the other just RETARDS the power loss...
So why doesn't the heat OUTFLOW increase for CO2 induced surface temp rises???? Hmmmmmm???
Those damn radiosonds balloons we've been using for over 100 years are so inaccurate....
Once again, you forgot to post your facts.
Or can we just say you are an asshole (simply because we think you are an asshole) with no proof ?
It's in the same ballpark as the forcing for GW at the surface... 3watts/m2 for GW.. 1.3Watts for the sun...
To use the TOTAL POWER of the sun at the surface and DISMISS 0.1% of it as TOO SMALL to have an effect ----------------------------------- is Fraud...
The calculation is roughly 0.1% of 1375 watts AVG on the planet surface (for 8 to 10 hours a day)
These folks might flunk HS math and science with boo boos in understanding like that..
That's why I asked Crick to compare Dr. Spencer's example to the old IPCC runs that set everyone's hair on fire..
But he didn't and won't... And since Dr. Spencer used ACTUAL data from the satellite fleet for temperature,
NOT MODELED "reanalysis" data that literally FOLLOWS THE FUCKING MODELS they are trying to match -
They completely left out the IPCC's own much larger slate of climate models...., that have been horrid failures.
This presentation addressed some of the nonsense by Hausfather et al paper.
I'm doubting that graph of yours WAS EVER in a scientific paper.. It's just NOT RIGHT... So cough up the ACTUAL source
And your FAVORITE --- SkepShitScience site... I'm thinking the pro cartoonists at your fave did another crayon job....
It's in the same ballpark as the forcing for GW at the surface... 3watts/m2 for GW.. 1.3Watts for the sun...
Nope, off by a factor of about 8.
Forcing is measured at the surface, not a the top of the atmosphere.
A quick glance at the Trenberth diagram show the solar radiation hitting the surface as 161 W/M^2. 0.1% of that is 0.16 W/M^2, which is insignificant compared to 3W/M^2.
To use the TOTAL POWER of the sun at the surface and DISMISS 0.1% of it as TOO SMALL to have an effect ----------------------------------- is Fraud...
As we so often see, the fact that you were stupid does not make anyone else a fraud.
.
The calculation is roughly 0.1% of 1375 watts AVG on the planet surface (for 8 to 10 hours a day)
These folks might flunk HS math and science with boo boos in understanding like that..
If we keep pointing out your ongoing faceplants, you might obtain self-awareness concerning just how ignorant of the science you are. But I'm not hopeful. You're just too emotionally invested in being wrong.
Once again, you forgot to post your facts.
No, I quoted Blackrook saying he didn't care if millions died, with no deniers calling him out on it. I proved my point quite well.
Or can we just say you are an asshole (simply because we think you are an asshole) with no proof ?
Eventually you'll learn that crying at me is counter-productive. It just demonstrates to me which of my tactics is most effective, and so it results in me using those tactics more.
I'm doubting that graph of yours WAS EVER in a scientific paper.. It's just NOT RIGHT... So cough up the ACTUAL source
Climate model projections compared to observations
Please proceed with insulting the authors instead of addressing the topic.
And your FAVORITE --- SkepShitScience site... I'm thinking the pro cartoonists at your fave did another crayon job....
How do you think your reliance on ad homs and conspiracy theories makes you look to others?
Oh, you might want to read this too.
NOAA temperature record updates and the ‘hiatus’
Er, no. Satellite data is a _model_. It's hilarious, watching you claim that models are measurements and measurements are models.
Maybe have a new signature from Mamooth.. "Measurements are models"....
Hey westwall -- ya wanna bid on who gets to use that for a sigline????
Its either that or the Joe Biden "We believe in TRUTH, not FACTS" LOL
Er, no. Satellite data is a _model_. It's hilarious, watching you claim that models are measurements and measurements are models.
STRIKE 9 -- You're out of here.. ALGORITHM or MODEL.. Seems you don't know the diff... Algorithms are CLOSED FORMS ways of processing REAL data.. Models are mathematical descriptions to estimate or project where NO DATA EXIST...
BOTH UAH and RSS are algorithms.. BOTH are completely different but give essentially the SAME results...
Think you're on "virtual" ignore again.. You're too fixated on me personally and MISSING everything you pitch at me...
Haha, the best part of this thread is watching the ignorant moron deniers immediately proceed to insist upon the truth of every single one of those debunked talking points. Nice job.10 common myths about climate change — and what science really says
These will all be familiar to anyone whose been here more than a day and a half
Haha, the best part of this thread is watching the ignorant moron deniers immediately proceed to insist upon the truth of every single one of those debunked talking points. Nice job.
I am not your assistant. Make your point, and we can see how it stacks up against the research of people who actually know what they are talking about, versus uneducated slobs like you who have politicized a scientific topic.Haha, the best part of this thread is watching the ignorant moron deniers immediately proceed to insist upon the truth of every single one of those debunked talking points. Nice job.
Let's see how well you can do with 8th grade math ... 40 gigatons of CO2 emission per year gives use how much increase in atmospheric concentration? ...
Letting the crickets answer for you is an answer in of itself ...
Haha, the best part of this thread is watching the ignorant moron deniers immediately proceed to insist upon the truth of every single one of those debunked talking points. Nice job.10 common myths about climate change — and what science really says
These will all be familiar to anyone whose been here more than a day and a half