Paradoxical Earth.. Complex responses often misinterpreted...

[Billy_Bob]

About 20 years ago Eskimos were noting that the windrows of snow had changed position in both the Arctic and Antarctic. This dynamic is when the shift in the transport system got moving across the poles. This is when the Rosby waves began to be driven by cooling and the polar vortices.

 

[Billy_Bob]

LW doesn't escape the atmosphere anywhere till it get up to the upper stratosphere due to the complete lack of water vapor and reduced air density. The vertical path to space may be shorter at the poles but if it has to laterally penetrate 3,000 miles of air to get there, it's not going to be the favored path.

You frequently write sentences that make me think you are intentionally trying to be difficult to understand because you really don't know what you're saying but want to make your reader think its their shortcoming.

How does WHAT distance make IR (I assume) impossible to retain?


Then perhaps you could spell them out for us.

I think Javier's response tells the tale:

"For the time being climate change is only considered in radiative terms, not only by the entire IPCC orthodoxy, but also by most of the scientific skeptic community. That climate can change due to dynamical changes in the ocean-atmosphere coupled circulation is only being considered by a few that have taught themselves outside the dogma, like me, and are capable to see it in the evidence."

You folks are stuck on stupid and can't figure out why everything you do doesn't work.

 

[Crick]

You're not bothered by "taught themselves outside the dogma" or the extreme measures Vinos has to take to demonstrate correlation between solar activity and poleward transport? Where are the data demonstrating that "dynamical changes in the ocean-atmosphere circulation" cause climate change? And, for that matter, where are the empirical observations I asked you to identify after you claimed they showed that neither CO2 nor man had any involvement in global warming?

 

[Billy_Bob]

You're not bothered by "taught themselves outside the dogma" or the extreme measures Vinos has to take to demonstrate correlation between solar activity and poleward transport? Where are the data demonstrating that "dynamical changes in the ocean-atmosphere circulation" cause climate change? And, for that matter, where are the empirical observations I asked you to identify after you claimed they showed that neither CO2 nor man had any involvement in global warming?

You still don't get it. SCIENCE IS BEING SKEPTICAL AND LOOKING FOR OTHER SOLOUTIONS.
Feynman stated: "If your hypothesis cannot be replicated and verified by empirical observation, its wrong." You keep trying to make this "personal" instead of looking at the science. And that is why you fail. You keep touting a failed hypothesis and refuseing to look at why your hypothesis failed. Someone comes along, with a new hypothesis, one that removes your control over the populace, by being able to regulate fuels and their uses, you go apoplectic. That tells me your whole plan was population control, not science.

Javier's math is correct. His premise is solid. Explain that away without going personal.

 

[jc456]

You're not bothered by "taught themselves outside the dogma" or the extreme measures Vinos has to take to demonstrate correlation between solar activity and poleward transport? Where are the data demonstrating that "dynamical changes in the ocean-atmosphere circulation" cause climate change? And, for that matter, where are the empirical observations I asked you to identify after you claimed they showed that neither CO2 nor man had any involvement in global warming?

let me ask you a question, is there any other agency outside of those funded by governments that agrees with the nonsense the IPCC publishes?

 

[jc456]

You still don't get it. SCIENCE IS BEING SKEPTICAL AND LOOKING FOR OTHER SOLOUTIONS.
Feynman stated: "If your hypothesis cannot be replicated and verified by empirical observation, its wrong." You keep trying to make this "personal" instead of looking at the science. And that is why you fail. You keep touting a failed hypothesis and refuseing to look at why your hypothesis failed. Someone comes along, with a new hypothesis, one that removes your control over the populace, by being able to regulate fuels and their uses, you go apoplectic. That tells me your whole plan was population control, not science.

Javier's math is correct. His premise is solid. Explain that away without going personal.

thank you, you are correct, they all make it personal. Like our existence is our fault. Yet, no agency or group outside those funded by governments agree with their nonsense. simply amazing I tell you.

 

[Crick]

You still don't get it. SCIENCE IS BEING SKEPTICAL AND LOOKING FOR OTHER SOLOUTIONS.
Feynman stated: "If your hypothesis cannot be replicated and verified by empirical observation, its wrong." You keep trying to make this "personal" instead of looking at the science. And that is why you fail. You keep touting a failed hypothesis and refuseing to look at why your hypothesis failed. Someone comes along, with a new hypothesis, one that removes your control over the populace, by being able to regulate fuels and their uses, you go apoplectic. That tells me your whole plan was population control, not science.

Javier's math is correct. His premise is solid. Explain that away without going personal.

Science is always skeptical and looking for other solutions. That does NOT mean that science has rejected what it currently holds as the best theory; it's just what science does. AGW is has been repeated and verified thousands of times by thousands of studies. NO ONE has verified Vinos' work.

You have no repeatedly claimed that AGW is a failed hypothesis when, as you well know, it is a VERY widely accepted theory. You claimed that empirical observations had shown it had failed yet, even when asked, you have NEVER presented those observations.

In this conversation I have assiduously stayed clear of discussions of the qualifications you claim. Any comments I have made that you might want to take as personal were addressing your failure to produce the observations you claimed to possess. That is, they were part and parcel of this discussion. That can NOT be said when you accuse me of being motivated by a desire to exercise "control over the populace". It cannot be said of ANY attempt to attach motives to my statements.

If Javier's (you're on a first name basis now?) premise is correct, perhaps you can explain how energy transport through 6,000 miles of air can overwhelm transport through 100 miles of air with 4.5 TIMES as great a temperature differential? For that matter, if most of the Earth's heating is escaping above the Arctic, HOW do satellites find a linear relationship between surface temperature and OLW intensity?

 

[jc456]

Science is always skeptical and looking for other solutions. That does NOT mean that science has rejected what it currently holds as the best theory; it's just what science does

Science also doesn't mean it accepts that which is known as consensus. yet you keep using the word while discussing the word science. Take that word and tie it off and hang it for your own use.

 

[Crick]

Science also doesn't mean it accepts that which is known as consensus.

Good fucking god... That is EXACTLY what it fucking means ! ! !

yet you keep using the word while discussing the word science. Take that word and tie it off and hang it for your own use.

HOW do you find out what scientists think about any particular theory? HOW do you determine whether some particular theory is rejected, is considered iffy, is accepted or is widely accepted among scientists WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE FUCKING CONSENSUS ? ? ? What does the term "widely accepted" mean if not "has a high level of consensus?"

 

[jc456]

Good fucking god are you STUPID. That is EXACTLY what it fucking means ! ! !

Link

 

[jc456]

HOW do you find out what scientists think about any particular theory? HOW do you determine whether some particular theory is rejected, is considered iffy, is accepted or is widely accepted among scientists WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE FUCKING CONSENSUS ? ?

Consensus Science and the Peer Review - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I have always had a negative gut reaction to the concept of “consensus science.” But Michael Crichton explains it best when he said:

I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

And he continues:

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

 

[Crick]

Consensus Science and the Peer Review - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I have always had a negative gut reaction to the concept of “consensus science.” But Michael Crichton explains it best when he said:

And he continues:

I ask again, how would you determine whether or not a theory was "widely accepted"?

 

[jc456]

I ask again, how would you determine whether or not a theory was "widely accepted"?

By repeating and replication

 

[Crick]

By repeating and replication

You are so stupid you make me want to pull out my hair. Fortunately, its all long gone. The question is NOT how do you verify a study, the question is HOW DO YOU FIND OUT HOW WIDELY ACCEPTED A STUDY IS AMONG OTHER SCIENTISTS? It is the scientists who do the repeating and replication. Or perhaps you can tell us about your attempts to replicate the thousands of studies that you accept and take for granted every day of your life.

 

[jc456]

You are so stupid you make me want to pull out my hair. Fortunately, its all long gone. The question is NOT how do you verify a study, the question is HOW DO YOU FIND OUT HOW WIDELY ACCEPTED A STUDY IS AMONG OTHER SCIENTISTS? It is the scientists who do the repeating and replication. Or perhaps you can tell us about your attempts to replicate the thousands of studies that you accept and take for granted every day of your life.

I posted for your review and no way did you read it.

You obviously can’t challenge with evidence, proof is your out of control post

 

[Crick]

I posted for your review and no way did you read it.

You obviously can’t challenge with evidence, proof is your out of control post

TROLL

 

[jc456]

TROLL

Drop mic

 

[Crick]

TROLL

 

[Billy_Bob]

Science is always skeptical and looking for other solutions. That does NOT mean that science has rejected what it currently holds as the best theory; it's just what science does. AGW is has been repeated and verified thousands of times by thousands of studies. NO ONE has verified Vinos' work.

You have no repeatedly claimed that AGW is a failed hypothesis when, as you well know, it is a VERY widely accepted theory. You claimed that empirical observations had shown it had failed yet, even when asked, you have NEVER presented those observations.

In this conversation I have assiduously stayed clear of discussions of the qualifications you claim. Any comments I have made that you might want to take as personal were addressing your failure to produce the observations you claimed to possess. That is, they were part and parcel of this discussion. That can NOT be said when you accuse me of being motivated by a desire to exercise "control over the populace". It cannot be said of ANY attempt to attach motives to my statements.

If Javier's (you're on a first name basis now?) premise is correct, perhaps you can explain how energy transport through 6,000 miles of air can overwhelm transport through 100 miles of air with 4.5 TIMES as great a temperature differential? For that matter, if most of the Earth's heating is escaping above the Arctic, HOW do satellites find a linear relationship between surface temperature and OLW intensity?

No one is so blind as someone who refuses to see.

And this is why no one responds to your drivel. All you see is your own narrative you never look over the side of the box to see what else is going on.

Javier Vino's book is getting a huge review on Anthony Watts site.

Meridional Transport, the most fundamental climate variable

By Andy May “The atmospheric heat transport on Earth from the Equator to the poles is largely carried out by the mid-latitude storms. However, there is no satisfactory theory to describe this funda…

wattsupwiththat.com

IF you take the time to actually read what has been written and do the math they go through, you might actually learn something. From the book and the two cited papers:

The three factors responsible for Earth’s thermal stability then are the greenhouse effect, clouds, and meridional transport. Modern climatology ignores the last two and focuses exclusively on the first, by developing the CO2 “control knob” climate hypothesis. The effect of clouds and their variability on climate change is still largely unknown. According the IPCC AR6 report (on page 979) cloud feedback to surface warming could be positive or negative and it is the largest source of uncertainty in the effect of greenhouse gases on the climate.

Javier goes point by point why CO2 cannot be the driver. Javier points out that the Green House is one of three processes that balance the thermal balance on earth.

 

[Crick]

No one is so blind as someone who refuses to see.

And this is why no one responds to your drivel. All you see is your own narrative you never look over the side of the box to see what else is going on.

Javier Vino's book is getting a huge review on Anthony Watts site.

Meridional Transport, the most fundamental climate variable

By Andy May “The atmospheric heat transport on Earth from the Equator to the poles is largely carried out by the mid-latitude storms. However, there is no satisfactory theory to describe this funda…

wattsupwiththat.com

IF you take the time to actually read what has been written and do the math they go through, you might actually learn something. From the book and the two cited papers:


Javier goes point by point why CO2 cannot be the driver. Javier points out that the Green House is one of three processes that balance the thermal balance on earth.

Where are the empirical observations that you claimed show that neither CO2 nor man is involved in global warming?