Recent Rapid SST Rise

[Crick]

I deflect with Stefan-Boltzmann's Law ... temperature is proportional to the fourth root of irradiation ... it takes fuckloads of carbon dioxide to raise temperature a little bit ...

Statistics not needed ... scientists use the EM force to calculate these things ... take an astrophysics class if you don't believe me ...

If you don't think CO2 and the greenhouse effect caused this:

please tell us what you think DID.

 

[EMH]

If you don't think CO2 and the greenhouse effect caused this:

please tell us what you think DID.

Taxpayer funded liars who bake this

 

[Crick]

Taxpayer funded liars who bake this

Evidence? I thought not. What do you think this photograph of your breakfast tells us? It tells us that you have no data showing no warming. You have no evidence that anyone has lied (except you).

 

[EMH]

you have no data showing no warming.

Outside of URBAN HEAT SINK EFFECT, there is NO DATA SHOWING WARMING, which outs the Co2 fraud as FRAUD.

 

[ReinyDays]

If you don't think CO2 and the greenhouse effect caused this:

please tell us what you think DID.

I don't see the correlation to the Keeling Curve ... see how CO2 goes up but temperatures go down ... those are failures ... stupid ...

Dr Hanson states in his textbook on Climatology that there are about two dozen factor that effect Earth's surface temperature ... it's sad you deny SB because it's far far easier to see what effects temperatures through succinct and exact mathematical terms ... you prefer weasel words because of your lack of formal education in science ...

Why is your chart flatlined from 1850 to 1980 ... 130 years of the industrial revolution, belching worse than just CO2, yet NO temperature increase per the ±0.5ºC margin of error ... temperatures when DOWN during WW2 and the rebuilding afterwards ...

God knows you're a STUPID ************ ...

 

[Crick]

I don't see the correlation to the Keeling Curve ... see how CO2 goes up but temperatures go down ... those are failures ... stupid ...

Show me a natural process on a global scale with a tighter correlation. You accept the greenhouse effect of CO2 and surely must be aware that the warming is calculable. But you reject the positive feedback mechanisms. Right? In that case, what do you believe is causing the observed warming?

Dr Hanson states in his textbook on Climatology that there are about two dozen factor that effect Earth's surface temperature ... it's sad you deny SB because it's far far easier to see what effects temperatures through succinct and exact mathematical terms ... you prefer weasel words because of your lack of formal education in science ...

Now YOU are lying. I have never denied SB. It's a ******* law of physics. Are you suggesting that the observed warming is solely due to a loss of albedo? UHI perhaps?

Why is your chart flatlined from 1850 to 1980 ... 130 years of the industrial revolution, belching worse than just CO2, yet NO temperature increase per the ±0.5ºC margin of error

Now you are lying again.

... temperatures when DOWN during WW2 and the rebuilding afterwards ...

Yes they did. But, of course, you ignore the radical rise just before. That has been a recurrent pattern. Radical spike upwards followed by several years of steady temps followed by a radical peak upwards. That is what happened with the 2003 hiatus and what appears to be happening today.

 

[ReinyDays]

Show me a natural process on a global scale with a tighter correlation.

Human population growth gives us 100% correlation ... every year we increase our numbers, CO2 level go up ... is sex not natural to you? ...

You accept the greenhouse effect of CO2 and surely must be aware that the warming is calculable.

Agree 100% ... but this doesn't mean it has been calculated ... or the Alarmists would be bragging about it ... I've asked you for your math, you refuse to admit it exists ...

But you reject the positive feedback mechanisms. Right? In that case, what do you believe is causing the observed warming?

What Dr Hanson wrote in his textbook on Climatology ... about two dozen factors that effect temperature on the Earth's surface ... yes, CO2 is one of these factors, but nothing special ... even doctors are held to a higher standard in the scientific media than the commercial ...

Cyclones have a positive feedback mechanism ... and I can explain in every little detail why this claim doesn't violate any of the three laws of thermodynamics ... can you say the same about your claims? ...

Now YOU are lying. I have never denied SB. It's a ******* law of physics. Are you suggesting that the observed warming is solely due to a loss of albedo? UHI perhaps?

You don't use SB, thus you deny it ... I'm thinking you don't understand SB, and refuse to learn ... or you'd gladly discuss the equation, factor-by-factor ... in which you'd find out that the albedo term isn't exact enough to get more than whole degree temperature change on the Earth's surface ...

I'm suggesting the atmosphere's effect on surface temperature is governed by all the factors discussed in Dr Hanson's textbook on Climatology ... about two dozen ...

But, of course, you ignore the radical rise just before. That has been a recurrent pattern. Radical spike upwards followed by several years of steady temps followed by a radical peak upwards. That is what happened with the 2003 hiatus and what appears to be happening today.

I don't ignore it ... and faithfully include it in my 100-year averages ... doesn't change the fact it's a single degree, barely above instrumentation error, and not "radical" ... ******* weasel words with your lying statistics ...

=====

T^4 = (S ( 1 - a )) / 4oe ...

Right here right now ... little girl ... letter by letter ... number by number ... California expects 14-year-olds to know how to do this ...

 

[mamooth]

it's sad you deny SB

No one is denying S-B.

We are pointing out how badly you misuse it. That's common to deniers, not understanding physics. You're clearly parroting something you don't understand. The funny part is how you don't understand how little you know. You're displaying classic Dunning-Kruger Syndrome in that respect.

Instead of evading by sputtering out insults, do what we do. State your point clearly and directly, then clearly and directly explain what relevance the Stefan-Boltzmann Law has to do with your point.

And no, don't just say it shows a T^4 relationship. Explain to us exactly _why_ that matters in the context of proving your previously stated point. If you're not clueless, that shouldn't be a problem for you. So far, it has been a big problem for you.

Why is your chart flatlined from 1850 to 1980 ...

Because CO2 levels hadn't increased significantly, because pollution aerosols were dimming the sun, and because solar output was low.

This is basic stuff, and you fail at it. You really shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

 

[jc456]

No, it wouldn't. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Warming oceans also increase wind shear, which disrupts hurricane formation. So you don't get more hurricanes, but you do get more powerful ones.

That's what's been observed. Once more, the predictions of AGW theory have been shown to be correct.

Hahaha haha what a kick, what happens when you cross the international timeline father?

Hahaha

Can’t be this because of that, can’t be that because of this circle!!! Hahaha

 

[jc456]

Human population growth gives us 100% correlation ... every year we increase our numbers, CO2 level go up ... is sex not natural to you? ...



Agree 100% ... but this doesn't mean it has been calculated ... or the Alarmists would be bragging about it ... I've asked you for your math, you refuse to admit it exists ...



What Dr Hanson wrote in his textbook on Climatology ... about two dozen factors that effect temperature on the Earth's surface ... yes, CO2 is one of these factors, but nothing special ... even doctors are held to a higher standard in the scientific media than the commercial ...

Cyclones have a positive feedback mechanism ... and I can explain in every little detail why this claim doesn't violate any of the three laws of thermodynamics ... can you say the same about your claims? ...



You don't use SB, thus you deny it ... I'm thinking you don't understand SB, and refuse to learn ... or you'd gladly discuss the equation, factor-by-factor ... in which you'd find out that the albedo term isn't exact enough to get more than whole degree temperature change on the Earth's surface ...

I'm suggesting the atmosphere's effect on surface temperature is governed by all the factors discussed in Dr Hanson's textbook on Climatology ... about two dozen ...


I don't ignore it ... and faithfully include it in my 100-year averages ... doesn't change the fact it's a single degree, barely above instrumentation error, and not "radical" ... ******* weasel words with your lying statistics ...

=====

T^4 = (S ( 1 - a )) / 4oe ...

Right here right now ... little girl ... letter by letter ... number by number ... California expects 14-year-olds to know how to do this ...

Crick can’t stand humans! He wants to suffocate us all by killing off plants

 

[ReinyDays]

Crick can’t stand humans! He wants to suffocate us all by killing off plants

"Never attribute to malice what is better explained by ignorance" -- someone smarter than me ...

 

[ReinyDays]

And no, don't just say it shows a T^4 relationship. Explain to us exactly _why_ that matters in the context of proving your previously stated point.

It take large amount of carbon dioxide to make a small change in temperature ... and 1ºC is a very small change ... very near instrumentation error ...

Is that clear enough? ... do you even know which term is the subject of this discussion? ...

 

[jc456]

It take large amount of carbon dioxide to make a small change in temperature ... and 1ºC is a very small change ... very near instrumentation error ...

Is that clear enough? ... do you even know which term is the subject of this discussion? ...

Again, the variances in temperature around the globe differs by at least 32c and nothing happens

 

[ReinyDays]

Again, the variances in temperature around the globe differs by at least 32c and nothing happens

Closer to 60ºC ... and that's just in the vertical ... AND that counts as thermodynamic equilibrium ...

 

[mamooth]

It take large amount of carbon dioxide to make a small change in temperature ... and 1ºC is a very small change ... very near instrumentation error ...

No. You're demonstratying that you fail hard at statistics as well as at physics. You're well-rounded in your incompetence.

Is that clear enough? ...

Sure. You're deflecting and running again, like you do every time someone challenges you to back up your BS.

do you even know which term is the subject of this discussion? ...

That's what I asked you. As expected, you did a weasel-tapdance instead of answering. Let's try this again. Not that you'll answer, but watching you run never gets old.

State what point you're trying to make clearly and directly.

Then clearly and directly explain what relevance the Stefan-Boltzmann Law has to do with that point.

 

[jc456]

Closer to 60ºC ... and that's just in the vertical ... AND that counts as thermodynamic equilibrium ...

Ok, I was being gracious

 

[EMH]

Agree 100%

Correct, the correlation is precisely ZERO

Co2 went up

Atmospheric temps did not


THEORY REJECTED

 

[ReinyDays]

Correct, the correlation is precisely ZERO

Co2 went up

Atmospheric temps did not


THEORY REJECTED

ummmm ... might wanna check you arithematic ... I come up with 58% ... and coin-flipping is 50% ...

0% glabal warming means 100% global cooling ... and you don't mean that, do you? ...

 

[EMH]

ummmm ... might wanna check you arithematic ... I come up with 58% ... and coin-flipping is 50% ...

0% glabal warming means 100% global cooling ... and you don't mean that, do you? ...

0% means it does NOTHING. No warming or cooling. NOTHING.

Increase atmospheric co2 10 fold and IT WOULD STILL DO NOTHING.

 

[ReinyDays]

No. You're demonstratying that you fail hard at statistics as well as at physics. You're well-rounded in your incompetence.

You mean astrophysics ... only LIARS use statistics ... I don't know my friend ... SB is clear enough ... why do you think it doesn't say temperature is proportional to the fourth root of irradiation? ...

Then clearly and directly explain what relevance the Stefan-Boltzmann Law has to do with that point.

What exactly do you disagree with in my post #112? ... and show your math ... j* = oT^4 [where T=temperature, o=SB constant and j*=total irradiance] ...

Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org