NOAA Satellite records second largest 2-month temperature drop in history

[mamooth]

I posted the Updated Trenberth Chart, then posted the updated NASA numbers (Links were provided) yet you get angry that I did that.

Whenever you get triggered this massively, it means that I should simply return to whatever it was that triggered you, whatever it is you're trying so hard to run from. So I will.

For reasons that you won't explain, you've declared that comparing incoming solar radiation to a change in backradiation between two different revisions of a study is conclusive proof of ... something.

What it means, you won't say. Why it means anything, you won't say. You've just declared that it all means you win somehow. Yeah, sure thing.

Third Time I am asking you this question you keep avoiding.

For the third time, I'll point out the question is flawed, making any rational answer impossible. To demonstrate that, I keep asking you to answer it. The fact that you can't answer your own question proves that I'm right, that you're spouting nonsense.

Instead of playing gotcha games, why not to what I do? State a point clearly, directly, and calmly, and then back it up. People who understand a topic can do that. You can't.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The obvious I am going to ignore a valid question, because I think it is a "gotcha" question, he writes:

"For the third time, I'll point out the question is flawed, making any rational answer impossible. To demonstrate that, I keep asking you to answer it. The fact that you can't answer your own question proves that I'm right, that you're spouting nonsense."

This is the question he is trying hard to avoid:

"There is one set of new updated numbers showing that GHG's footprint gets a lot smaller over time as they updated the chart Global Energy Flows. Can you spot it, Mamooth?"

It was a very simple question, yet it scares the shit out of him!



I know the answer which is right there on the freaking chart. It is clear he doesn't understand even the most elementary question to an easy to find answer that is right there in the chart, there are two set of numbers, one from Trenberth 2008, the other from NASA.

The change is quite significant, yet this clod can't even see it at all!

The question is so easy to answer (third grade level), yet this clod can't even see the answer sitting right there on the chart!



=====
Moving on to other stuff he also avoid addressing, because he know he can't address it at all:

"This is reasonably accurate, but it is also entirely misleading. The two large energy flows named Surface Radiation and Back Radiation are different from all the others. They are not measures of energy transfers, but of radiative flux (also called forcing). As I have described before, there is a difference between energy transfers and radiative flux. Two objects at the same temperature have zero net energy transfer and as a result, will not change temperature. As the surface of the Earth and the atmosphere above have a small temperature difference (to be shown in a later article), there is little energy transfer between the two."

I stated several times that Mamooth doesn't understand the DIFFERENCE between Energy Transfer and Radiative Flux, never has addressed it at all....., heck he STILL doesn't understand how I did this:

"Radiative Flux:

358-340= 18"

You are flailing all over the place now, hoping your word diarrhea will save you....

Still can't address this because you have no answer to it, you NOTHING called a reasoned rebuttal, just evasive bullshit.

"you have NEVER backed it up, now you are whining because I destroyed your misleading chart claims, go back to post 128, learn that you failed to understand the DIFFERENCE between Energy Transfer and Radiative flux."

You really don't understand WHY the difference is crucial to the entire chart.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Hint: The answer is at the bottom of the Chart in POST 128

NASA number shows a big drop from the Trenberth number, which means CO2 effect gets smaller........ over time as more research updates the numbers.....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

All we know for certain is that modern CO2 does not act like the CO2 in the Vostok ice core which span SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS and conclusively show CO2 LAGGING temperature by 800 to 1,000 years