Finland & Japan Confirm Global Warming Data is not Supported

[ReinyDays]

Cosmic Rays? ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

A cosmic rays are, for the most part, just protons ... or HII ions if you prefer ... in a half ounce of water, there's are 10^16 bare nekked protons ... drink up, see they're harmless ... oh, and the Sun spews protons at us in rather surprising quantities ... what defines a "cosmic ray" is the direction the proton comes from, any direction other than the Sun ... or we call it solar wind ...

The thing about these bare nekked protons is that once they begin to enter the electron-rich atmosphere ... well ... they quickly become neutral Hydrogen ... say in the top 1% of the air layer ...

I'm sorry ... nucleation better describes what we see than cosmic rays ... not just cloud formation, but all around us ... open a bottle of beer, drink some, see how the fizzies seem to form at particular spots inside the glass bottle ... not cosmic rays ... those are nucleation sites ...

 

[Pawn-King-Nine]

Finland should get the taste of a nuke!
And, as far as Japan is concerned, apparently, two nukes were not enough to knock some sense into their tiny yellow, shoba-filled skulls !

They love to eat whales . . . so let's name the next NUKE . . . A HELL OF A WHALE !

Let's see how much they'd love that !

 

[mamooth]

He is a cut and paste master,

Didn't you give us at least two GoodbyeCruelWorld posts where you swore to never come back? How can we miss you if you don't stay away?

Got any more of your WUWT cut-and-paste pieces? After all, it's all you've ever had.

 

[mamooth]

Heat only flows from hot to cold (not from cold to hot).

Entirely consistent with AGW theory. As you don't understand something that basic, you might want to brush up on the basics.

It is not possible to trap heat.

So you're saying a blanket doesn't trap heat. That makes you a special breed of moron.

It is not possible to measure global CO2 concentration. CO2 is not uniformly distributed throughout the atmosphere and we do not have enough CO2 measuring stations.

Reality, as usual, contradicts you. Pick the right spot, and CO2 is very uniformly distributed. Your inability to understand reality does not invalidate reality.

Argument From Ignorance Fallacy.

Burden shifting on your part. It's not our job to disprove your claims of natural cycles fairy magic. It's your job to prove your claims of fairy magic are correcdt. You don't even try. You just pretend that you don't have to support any of your kook cult claims. Sadly for you, you do, if you don't want to be laughed at.

If you disagree, tell us how your "natural causes" fairy magic explains the directly measured stratospheric cooling, the directly measured increase in backradiation, and the directly measured decrease in outgoing longwave in the greenhouse gas emission bands.

We do not burn fossils for fuel... You are speaking of carbon based fuels...

Your refusal to use standard English makes you look pouty and butthurt.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any usable accuracy. There aren't enough thermometers.

Unsupported assertion, flatly contradicted by the laws of statistics and reality. You can remove 90% of the stations at random, and the results won't change. The thermometer network has way more sensors than are necessary to get a good average.

Remember, the enitire world is not conspiring against you, with you being one of the few brave intelligent souls who knows the RealTruth. You're just a boring cult dumbshit.

 

[gfm7175]

Heat only flows from hot to cold (not from cold to hot).

Entirely consistent with AGW theory. As you don't understand something that basic, you might want to brush up on the basics.

Not at all. AGW is attempting to make heat flow from cold to hot (from CO2 molecules to the Earth's surface). CO2 cannot heat Earth.

It is not possible to trap heat.

So you're saying a blanket doesn't trap heat. That makes you a special breed of moron.

Blankets do not trap heat. It is not possible to trap heat. Blankets reduce heat. Blankets reduce the coupling between the air underneath the blanket and the outside air.

It is not possible to measure global CO2 concentration. CO2 is not uniformly distributed throughout the atmosphere and we do not have enough CO2 measuring stations.

Reality, as usual, contradicts you. Pick the right spot, and CO2 is very uniformly distributed. Your inability to understand reality does not invalidate reality.

CO2 most certainly is NOT uniform throughout the atmosphere, even with the "right spot"... Do you even realize that you are contradicting yourself?? This is laughable...

Argument From Ignorance Fallacy.

Burden shifting on your part.

Fallacy Fallacy. Calling out your fallacies is not a burden shift.

It's not our job to disprove your claims of natural cycles fairy magic.

I never asked you to disprove my position. I've only asked you to support yours. So far you haven't done so.

It's your job to prove your claims of fairy magic are correcdt. You don't even try. You just pretend that you don't have to support any of your kook cult claims. Sadly for you, you do, if you don't want to be laughed at.

I've already supported my positions, in this post and elsewhere with you.

If you disagree, tell us how your "natural causes" fairy magic explains the directly measured stratospheric cooling, the directly measured increase in backradiation, and the directly measured decrease in outgoing longwave in the greenhouse gas emission bands.

None of those things are being directly measured, dude. A particular location (or locations) is not "the entire stratosphere, the entire atmosphere, the entire earth, etc...) I've already went through with you the mathematical rules for a statistical analysis. You need to first determine a target margin of error. That will guide how one goes about collecting the data... The issue with attempting to measure Earth's temperature (besides the temperature stations not being uniformly distributed and simultaneously read by the same authority) is that we simply do not have enough of them... 10,000 stations does not reduce the calculated margin of error at all. It remains at +/- 131 deg F... In other words, pure guesswork...

We do not burn fossils for fuel... You are speaking of carbon based fuels...

Your refusal to use standard English makes you look pouty and butthurt.

YOU are the one not using English... We don't burn fossils for fuel, dude... We burn carbon based fuels... We burn coal, oil, natural gas, ... ... ...

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth to any usable accuracy. There aren't enough thermometers.

Unsupported assertion, flatly contradicted by the laws of statistics and reality. You can remove 90% of the stations at random, and the results won't change. The thermometer network has way more sensors than are necessary to get a good average.

Denial of Statistical Mathematics. A margin of error of +/- 131 deg F is pure guesswork...

Remember, the enitire world is not conspiring against you, with you being one of the few brave intelligent souls who knows the RealTruth. You're just a boring cult dumbshit.

Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the Church of Global Warming cultist.
Insult Fallacy.

 

[Flash]

There may be a bigger hoax on humanity than this silly ass AGW bullshit but I would be hard pressed to think of it.

 

[ReinyDays]

There may be a bigger hoax on humanity than this silly ass AGW bullshit but I would be hard pressed to think of it.

Asteroid Attacks ...

 

[ding]

Cosmic Rays? ... HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ...

A cosmic rays are, for the most part, just protons ... or HII ions if you prefer ... in a half ounce of water, there's are 10^16 bare nekked protons ... drink up, see they're harmless ... oh, and the Sun spews protons at us in rather surprising quantities ... what defines a "cosmic ray" is the direction the proton comes from, any direction other than the Sun ... or we call it solar wind ...

The thing about these bare nekked protons is that once they begin to enter the electron-rich atmosphere ... well ... they quickly become neutral Hydrogen ... say in the top 1% of the air layer ...

I'm sorry ... nucleation better describes what we see than cosmic rays ... not just cloud formation, but all around us ... open a bottle of beer, drink some, see how the fizzies seem to form at particular spots inside the glass bottle ... not cosmic rays ... those are nucleation sites ...

CERN is studying it. They don't seem to be laughing about it. Studies suggest [CGR] may influence cloud cover either through the formation of new aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air that can grow to form seeds for cloud droplets) or by directly affecting clouds themselves.

CLOUD

home.cern

 

[mamooth]

Not at all. AGW is attempting to make heat flow from cold to hot (from CO2 molecules to the Earth's surface)/

No. You're confusing heat with energy. Heat is a statistical summary of energy flow, and always goes one way. Individual bits of energy can fly wherever they want.

This isn't debatable. It's been basic physics for over a century. Plainly, you have never taken a Statistical Mechanics course. It's junior year curriculum for physics majors, so non-physics majors don't ever see it.

Blankets do not trap heat.

And again, that makes you look insane.

It is not possible to trap heat. Blankets reduce heat. Blankets reduce the coupling between the air underneath the blanket and the outside air.

Which is trapping heat. Which makes you warmer. Just like is happening to the earth.

I never asked you to disprove my position.

Nobody can disprove your position, because you don't have one. Hence, you're not taken seriously.

In science, the simplest theory that explains all of the observed data is the accepted theory.

At this point, that is AGW theory.

If you want that to change, crying that your religion dislikes AGW theory is not how it's done. You have to propose a theory of your own that explains the data even better.

Needless to say, you won't, because you can't.

None of those things are being directly measured, dude.

Yes, they are. If your cult told you otherwise, your cult lied to you. And if you're just going to deny reality, there's little point in talking to you.

I've already went through with you the mathematical rules for a statistical analysis.

And you've shown yourself to be staggeringly ignorant of statistics. You've clearly never taken any statistics courses.

10,000 stations does not reduce the calculated margin of error at all. It remains at +/- 131 deg F... In other words, pure guesswork...

Even for you, that was insane. Where did you come up with such babbling nonsense? Did the cult feed it to you, or did you make it up yourself?

 

[fncceo]

They still want us to live likes it’s 5000 BC

It's not all bad...

 

[mamooth]

CERN is studying it. They don't seem to be laughing about it. Studies suggest [CGR] may influence cloud cover either through the formation of new aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air that can grow to form seeds for cloud droplets) or by directly affecting clouds themselves.

And it doesn't matter, because there's no shortage of other nucleation particles.

The cosmic ray theory is dead. Temperatures went in the opposite way of what the cosmic ray theory predicted. If reality contradicts your theory, your theory is wrong.

 

[ding]

CERN is studying it. They don't seem to be laughing about it. Studies suggest [CGR] may influence cloud cover either through the formation of new aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air that can grow to form seeds for cloud droplets) or by directly affecting clouds themselves.

And it doesn't matter, because there's no shortage of other nucleation particles.

The cosmic ray theory is dead. Temperatures went in the opposite way of what the cosmic ray theory predicted. If reality contradicts your theory, your theory is wrong.

It's not my theory, dear.

Can you to back up your claim with a link that CGR don't influence cloud cover either through the formation of new aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air that can grow to form seeds for cloud droplets) or don't directly affect clouds themselves?

 

[ReinyDays]

CERN is studying it. They don't seem to be laughing about it. Studies suggest [CGR] may influence cloud cover either through the formation of new aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air that can grow to form seeds for cloud droplets) or by directly affecting clouds themselves.

And it doesn't matter, because there's no shortage of other nucleation particles.

The cosmic ray theory is dead. Temperatures went in the opposite way of what the cosmic ray theory predicted. If reality contradicts your theory, your theory is wrong.

It's not my theory, dear.

Can you to back up your claim with a link that CGR don't influence cloud cover either through the formation of new aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air that can grow to form seeds for cloud droplets) or don't directly affect clouds themselves?

Do you know how most cloud droplets are formed? ... just so I know where to start ...

 

[ding]

CERN is studying it. They don't seem to be laughing about it. Studies suggest [CGR] may influence cloud cover either through the formation of new aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air that can grow to form seeds for cloud droplets) or by directly affecting clouds themselves.

And it doesn't matter, because there's no shortage of other nucleation particles.

The cosmic ray theory is dead. Temperatures went in the opposite way of what the cosmic ray theory predicted. If reality contradicts your theory, your theory is wrong.

It's not my theory, dear.

Can you to back up your claim with a link that CGR don't influence cloud cover either through the formation of new aerosols (tiny particles suspended in the air that can grow to form seeds for cloud droplets) or don't directly affect clouds themselves?

Do you know how most cloud droplets are formed? ... just so I know where to start ...

I'd rather you publish a paper on it or tell CERN why they shouldn't study it. How's that?

 

[ReinyDays]

Do you know how most cloud droplets are formed? ... just so I know where to start ...

I'd rather you publish a paper on it or tell CERN why they shouldn't study it. How's that?

This information is already published in numerous textbooks on the subject ...

Since you don't know how cloud droplets are formed, and obviously don't want to find out, you're claims to the contrary of established science ring hollow ... try reding the actual scientific papers coming out of CERN, instead of some grammar school blerb written for 10-year-old children ...

It was a trick question, nearly all cloud droplets are formed from melted ice crystals ... for many reasons, water has a difficult time condensing in the atmosphere, a big one is surface tension ... deposition is far and away the more common method of precipitation ... just about all rain in the temperate regions of he world are melted snowflakes ...

 

[Markle]

So what's your position on chemtrails?

If you ever watch Formula I or the top classes in the NHRA you will see "chemtrails" on the tips of the wings that hold them on the ground.

Both dragsters have them but they're much clearer on the car in the back. This is at over 300 mph.

 

[ding]

Do you know how most cloud droplets are formed? ... just so I know where to start ...

I'd rather you publish a paper on it or tell CERN why they shouldn't study it. How's that?

This information is already published in numerous textbooks on the subject ...

Since you don't know how cloud droplets are formed, and obviously don't want to find out, you're claims to the contrary of established science ring hollow ... try reding the actual scientific papers coming out of CERN, instead of some grammar school blerb written for 10-year-old children ...

It was a trick question, nearly all cloud droplets are formed from melted ice crystals ... for many reasons, water has a difficult time condensing in the atmosphere, a big one is surface tension ... deposition is far and away the more common method of precipitation ... just about all rain in the temperate regions of he world are melted snowflakes ...

You are just way too smart for me. I'm not able to read the minds of others like you

 

[ding]

Since you don't know how cloud droplets are formed, and obviously don't want to find out...

What number am I thinking of?

 

[ReinyDays]

2.71828182845904523536028747135266249775724709369995...

 

[ding]

at least he didn't say cow.