a real question for all about ice cores

[EMH]

How do you get temperature readings from ice cores?

Clearly ice cores are very useful for finding the various gas concentrations of the past.

But, let's be serious, an ice core is a series of layers of ice and snow/ice/gas trapped in between. Thickness is the amount of snow/frost and the force of the ice on top compressing it.

How do you get a "global temperature reading" from one ice core from Antarctica???

 

[ReinyDays]

Doesn't you source say? ... the scientific paper is still behind the journal Nature's paywall ... but here's a link to the abstract ... nothing about temperature ...

Why do you keep believing the National Enquirer? ...

 

[gfm7175]

How do you get temperature readings from ice cores?

Clearly ice cores are very useful for finding the various gas concentrations of the past.

But, let's be serious, an ice core is a series of layers of ice and snow/ice/gas trapped in between. Thickness is the amount of snow/frost and the force of the ice on top compressing it.

How do you get a "global temperature reading" from one ice core from Antarctica???

Answer: You don't. It's all bullshit, same with the entire religion of Global Warming.

The main question that believers in the faith cannot answer is this: Assuming constant output from the sun, where is the additional thermal energy coming from that is required to increase Earth's temperature? Is it a "miracle"? It most certainly isn't physics.......

 

[ReinyDays]

Answer: You don't. It's all bullshit, same with the entire religion of Global Warming.

The main question that believers in the faith cannot answer is this: Assuming constant output from the sun, where is the additional thermal energy coming from that is required to increase Earth's temperature? Is it a "miracle"? It most certainly isn't physics.......

Wait .. should the question be where we're losing energy ... temperatures are 15º - 20ºC cooler than they normally are ...

You missed a step here ... yes, constant solar output ... but Earth's reflection changes ... albedo is the portion of energy that is NOT absorbed by Earth and does NOT effect surface temperatures ... usually given as 30% (±5%) ...

Clouds are not constant ... thus temperatures are not constant ... the physics is called "Cloud Physics" ... where we explore the many-fold aspects of water's exotic properties ... the thermodynamics is insane ... heavy heavy mathing for shore ...

 

[gfm7175]

Wait .. should the question be where we're losing energy ... temperatures are 15º - 20ºC cooler than they normally are ...

You missed a step here ... yes, constant solar output ... but Earth's reflection changes ... albedo is the portion of energy that is NOT absorbed by Earth and does NOT effect surface temperatures ... usually given as 30% (±5%) ...

Clouds are not constant ... thus temperatures are not constant ... the physics is called "Cloud Physics" ... where we explore the many-fold aspects of water's exotic properties ... the thermodynamics is insane ... heavy heavy mathing for shore ...

Physics deniers erroneously claim that it is somehow "science" (rather than religion) that Earth is spontaneously increasing in temperature without any additional thermal energy present. This denial of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is what the focus should be on.

 

[ReinyDays]

Physics deniers erroneously claim that it is somehow "science" (rather than religion) that Earth is spontaneously increasing in temperature without any additional thermal energy present. This denial of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is what the focus should be on.

Why do you say "without any additional thermal energy present"? ... current radiative forcing is measured at 1.8 W/m^2 ... that's an instrument in space pointed back towards Earth ...

Right ... the 1st Law of Thermodynamics demands temperatures be increasing ... because energy on Earth's surface is increasing, therefore temperatures and/or evaporation must increase ...

But you only said "thermal energy" ... you must be a chemistry and biology denier if you don't allow photosynthesis to use some energy from the Sun ... oh, and a meteorology denier because we use latent energy in weather forecasting studies ... these laws of thermodynamics apply to all forms of energy all together ... not just average kinetic energy = temperature ...

Just checked ... temperatures spontaneously started increasing today when the fog burned off ... fucking weird I know ...

 

[gfm7175]

Why do you say "without any additional thermal energy present"?

Because temperature cannot increase without it.

... current radiative forcing is measured at 1.8 W/m^2 ... that's an instrument in space pointed back towards Earth ...

There is no such thing as a "forcing".

Right ... the 1st Law of Thermodynamics demands temperatures be increasing

No it doesn't.

... because energy on Earth's surface is increasing, therefore temperatures and/or evaporation must increase ...

Redistribution is not addition.
Earth’s surface is not the entire Earth.
Ignoring ‘cooling’ to solely focus on ‘warming’ does not make ‘cooling’ disappear.

But you only said "thermal energy"

Yes, because thermal energy is the type of energy that is relevant re: temperature.

... you must be a chemistry and biology denier if you don't allow photosynthesis to use some energy from the Sun ... oh, and a meteorology denier because we use latent energy in weather forecasting studies ... these laws of thermodynamics apply to all forms of energy all together ... not just average kinetic energy = temperature ...

This discussion is about Earth's equilibrium temperature. Let's stick to discussing that.

Just checked ... temperatures spontaneously started increasing today when the fog burned off ... fucking weird I know ...

Temperatures of substances increase and decrease all the time. We are specifically talking about Earth's equilibrium temperature. Stay focused.

 

[Crick]

Physics deniers erroneously claim that it is somehow "science" (rather than religion) that Earth is spontaneously increasing in temperature without any additional thermal energy present. This denial of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is what the focus should be on.

I'm going to go out tomorrow and place a quartz rock painted white and a quartz rock painted black, of identical size, on the ground under the sun. About 2 or 3 in the afternoon, I will ask you to place each on some sensitive part of your body. What difference do you expect to feel? Then please explain why such a difference exists.

 

[ReinyDays]

There is no such thing as a "forcing".

Newton tells us that force is equal to mass times acceleration ... his 2nd Law of Motion ... this is basic physics ... and power is the first derivative of force with respect to time ... that's the "watts" part of watts per square meter ... so of course it's a forcing, something caused by a force ... that's what power is ... you completely lost me on square meters ... just how many square meters are there inside the Earth? ...

I'm not subscribed to your newsletter ... so I'm not familiar with your theories ...

 

[Crick]

Newton tells us that force is equal to mass times acceleration ... his 2nd Law of Motion ... this is basic physics ... and power is the first derivative of force with respect to time ... that's the "watts" part of watts per square meter ... so of course it's a forcing, something caused by a force ... that's what power is ... you completely lost me on square meters ... just how many square meters are there inside the Earth? ...

I'm not subscribed to your newsletter ... so I'm not familiar with your theories ...

Just out of curiosity, where is the mass in radiative forcing? Perhaps you should have looked it up before posting nonsense.

Radiative forcing is what happens when the amount of energy that enters the Earth’s atmosphere is different from the amount of energy that leaves it. Energy travels in the form of radiation: solar radiation entering the atmosphere from the sun, and infrared radiation exiting as heat. If more radiation is entering Earth than leaving—as is happening today—then the atmosphere will warm up. This is called radiative forcing because the difference in energy can force changes in the Earth’s climate.​

​

Heat in, heat out​

Sunlight is always shining on half of the Earth’s surface. Some of this sunlight (about 30 percent) is reflected back to space. The rest is absorbed by the planet. But as with any warm object sitting in cold surroundings—and space is a very cold place—some energy from Earth is always radiating back out into space as heat.​

​

Radiative forcing measures how much energy is coming in from the sun, compared to how much is leaving. The analysis needed to pin down this exact number is very complicated. Many factors, including clouds, polar ice, and the physical properties of gases in the atmosphere, have an effect on this balancing act, and each has its own level of uncertainty and its own difficulties in being precisely measured. However, we do know that today, more heat is coming in than going out.​

Radiative Forcing

Radiative forcing is what happens when the amount of energy that enters the Earth’s atmosphere is different from the amount of energy that leaves it.

climate.mit.edu

​

 

[gfm7175]

Newton tells us that force is equal to mass times acceleration ... his 2nd Law of Motion ... this is basic physics ... and power is the first derivative of force with respect to time ... that's the "watts" part of watts per square meter ... so of course it's a forcing, something caused by a force ... that's what power is ... you completely lost me on square meters ... just how many square meters are there inside the Earth? ...

I'm not subscribed to your newsletter ... so I'm not familiar with your theories ...

Forcing: noun
According to the Global Warming mythology, a forcing is a miracle performed by Climate in discharging Her duties as the central planner and administrator of all weather systems, ecosystems and local climates across the globe, of all interactions thereof and in caring for the wellbeing of all life on earth. This falls under Climate Science.

 

[ReinyDays]

Forcing: noun
According to the Global Warming mythology, a forcing is a miracle performed by Climate in discharging Her duties as the central planner and administrator of all weather systems, ecosystems and local climates across the globe, of all interactions thereof and in caring for the wellbeing of all life on earth. This falls under Climate Science.

Again ... I know nothing of your world-view ... is this a flat Earth thing? ... force is mass times acceleration ... period ... what ever magic you're using is probably a felony under the control substances act ...

 

[gfm7175]

Again ... I know nothing of your world-view ... is this a flat Earth thing? ... force is mass times acceleration ... period ... what ever magic you're using is probably a felony under the control substances act ...

This is science. I'm not disputing this at all.

That's not what the Church of Global Warming means when they say 'forcing', however.

 

[EMH]

Answer: You don't. It's all bullshit, same with the entire religion of Global Warming.

The main question that believers in the faith cannot answer is this: Assuming constant output from the sun, where is the additional thermal energy coming from that is required to increase Earth's temperature? Is it a "miracle"? It most certainly isn't physics.......

Its not "bullshit" but the quality of the data, and given one and only one spot on Earth being used as all of Earth, makes it less than ideal and certain.

The satellites and balloons showing NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite rising CO2, that's REAL DATA, 100 fold better quality.

 

[EMH]

Doesn't you source say? ... the scientific paper is still behind the journal Nature's paywall ... but here's a link to the abstract ... nothing about temperature ...

Why do you keep believing the National Enquirer? ...

What do you consider to be higher quality data?

1. highly correlated satellite and balloon data showing NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite rising Co2
2. ice cores from one spot on Earth using rather "extravagant" methods to come up with a "temperature" that is then extrapolated globally

 

[EMH]

Physics deniers erroneously claim that it is somehow "science" (rather than religion) that Earth is spontaneously increasing in temperature without any additional thermal energy present. This denial of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is what the focus should be on.

There is NO EVIDENCE at all of Earth as a planet warming now...

NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
NO WARMING in the OCEANS
NO OCEAN RISING which proves
NO NET ONGOING ICE MELT
NO BREAKOUT in CANES


NOTHING but 100% pure FUDGE and FRAUD bilking America $20 trillion and counting...

 

[ReinyDays]

This is science. I'm not disputing this at all.

That's not what the Church of Global Warming means when they say 'forcing', however.

Yes it is ... "forcing" and "force" are synonyms ... we measure more energy coming into the climate system than we measure leaving ... therefore energy levels must be increasing in the climate system ... and it follows temperatures must also increase, but not necessarily ... you can verify this using data from your local weather station ... I have not found any station that didn't conform to NOAA's claim of global warming ...

The dispute is strictly whether man-kind is causing this rise in temperatures ... not that temperatures aren't 1ºC higher than they were 140 years ago ...

This is freshman physics ... is it fair to say you've never taken a physics class? ... because your math is very very wrong ...

 

[ReinyDays]

What do you consider to be higher quality data?

1. highly correlated satellite and balloon data showing NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite rising Co2
2. ice cores from one spot on Earth using rather "extravagant" methods to come up with a "temperature" that is then extrapolated globally

Your first option is imaginary ... satellites don't measure temperature ... stop lying ...

I'm not taking temperatures readings from ice cores ... I'm asking you why you think they're wrong? ... and yes, "one spot" is what we're using in Continuum mechanics ...

You still think we had satellites in the early 20th Century ... too funny ... Bubba didn't finish Middle School ...

 

[gfm7175]

Its not "bullshit"

It really is. An ice core is only one specific spot on Earth, not the whole Earth, as you correctly note below. It is also not a temperature measurement of any kind.

but the quality of the data, and given one and only one spot on Earth being used as all of Earth, makes it less than ideal and certain.

It can't magically provide a temperature measurement of Earth. That's all that really needs to be said.

The satellites and balloons showing NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite rising CO2, that's REAL DATA, 100 fold better quality.

It's "real data", but it's not accurate temperature measurements of Earth.

Even setting aside the issues of not being uniformly spaced nor simultaneously read by the same observer (IOW, location and time biases), there’s still WAYYYYY too few thermometers to even get a grasp on what Earth’s SURFACE temperature is, let alone what Earth’s temperature is. What do you mean, gfm7175? Well, think about this fact, assuming 20,000 thermometers scattered across Earth's surface:

Is ONE thermometer enough to accurately measure the temperature of anywhere within the entire State of Vermont?

No, you say?! Well, you’d be correct. So, if a thermometer to sq mile ratio of 1 thermometer per roughly 9,800 sq miles is NOT good enough for the State of Vermont, then why do you believe that the very same 1 thermometer per 9,800 sq mile ratio is good enough for Earth?

 

[gfm7175]

What do you consider to be higher quality data?

1. highly correlated satellite and balloon data showing NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite rising Co2
2. ice cores from one spot on Earth using rather "extravagant" methods to come up with a "temperature" that is then extrapolated globally

1 is better than 2, but even 1 isn't up to my data collection standards.