Recent Rapid SST Rise

[Crick]

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? ...



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

What do YOU think is the significance of SB IN THIS ARGUMENT? Do you think SB refutes AGW? Do you think all those scientists working the global warming problem lack your finessed understanding of the equation?

 

[ReinyDays]

What do YOU think is the significance of SB IN THIS ARGUMENT? Do you think SB refutes AGW? Do you think all those scientists working the global warming problem lack your finessed understanding of the equation?

With what they publish in the scientific media? ... yes ... I don't know where FoxNews gets their information ...

Why don't you let those who do work in climatology speak for themselves ... you don't understand the material well enough to present their arguments ... dumbass ...

Climatologists model the atmosphere using SB ... so should you ... you don't want SB to have any significance because it says you're wrong ... and you ignore anything that says you're wrong ...

Why do you think a 1ºC temperature rise will allow hypercanes to form? ... I'm not denying global warming, I'm denying any catastrophic results from this trivial amount of warming ... all that will happen is we'll have longer growing seasons and more productive harvests ... why is Missouri climate bad for Iowa? ...

 

[Crick]

With what they publish in the scientific media? ... yes

Yes, you think SB refutes AGW or yes you think climate scientists lack your finessed understanding of the equation?

... I don't know where FoxNews gets their information ...

I don't watch Fox News so I don't know what relevance that has

Why don't you let those who do work in climatology speak for themselves ... you don't understand the material well enough to present their arguments ... dumbass ...

So you have links to studies that show SB refutes AGW or studies that show they lack your finessed understanding of the equation?

Climatologists model the atmosphere using SB

SB would be used in any work involving thermally-driven radiative processes.

... so should you ...

I'm not a climate scientist. I am a retired ocean engineer.

you don't want SB to have any significance because it says you're wrong

Your fantasy that I don't like SB or that I reject it is utter nonsense. I fully accept SB and always have. It's simply another lie you think you have to tell about me because somewhere back in the eons of time I must have embarrassed you. And that you would scream about me lying as if it were a capital offense, lying about me all the while, does NOT speak well for your own character.

... and you ignore anything that says you're wrong ...

That doesn't explain why I have admitted errors on this forum on more than one occasion

Why do you think a 1ºC temperature rise will allow hypercanes to form? ...

I've never said any such thing.

I'm not denying global warming,

Good.

I'm denying any catastrophic results from this trivial amount of warming ...

Would you deny catastrophic results from 4 or 5 centigrade degrees of warming?

all that will happen is we'll have longer growing seasons and more productive harvests ... why is Missouri climate bad for Iowa? ...

The sea level rise and loss of drinking water that would unavoidably accompany that change.

 

[jc456]

The sea level rise and loss of drinking water that would unavoidably accompany that change.

Except you can't name a place where sea level rise is occurring.

 

[Crick]

Except you can't name a place where sea level rise is occurring.

You can't be trusted. Fuck off.

 

[jc456]

You can't be trusted. Fuck off.

This is what you use to show sea level rise...

Models of fantasy land. the plane, the plane. Not sure even if that were even closely true, I don't see any drinking water affected?

Perhaps this isn't a good online site for you since you can't control your temper.

 

[EMH]

Climatologists model the atmosphere using SB

All while ignoring the actual highly correlated satellite and balloon data which showed precisely NO WARMING despite rising Co2


THEORY REJECTED

 

[EMH]

This is what you use to show sea level rise...

View attachment 783437


Models of fantasy land. the plane, the plane. Not sure even if that were even closely true, I don't see any drinking water affected?

Perhaps this isn't a good online site for you since you can't control your temper.

Sea level is rising in "climatologists's taxpayer funded models" but there is precisely no ocean rise on actual planet Earth...

 

[EMH]

You can't be trusted. Fuck off.

Once again, when a serious question is put to you, you out yourself as a completely incompetent beaked birdbrain MORON.

 

[ReinyDays]

I'm not a climate scientist. I am a retired ocean engineer.

Then you should stick to subjects you understand ... Climatologists use SB ... you refuse ... of course you claim ignorance ... and like a fucking cat, you refuse to learn ...

 

[mamooth]

You mean astrophysics

Astrophysics? You're all over the map with your crazy now.

... 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? ...

I specific told you not to evade by saying that, given how everyone already knows it. And so ... you evaded with it.

First I asked you to clearly and directly state your point.

Then I asked you to tell us why the T^4 relationship matters regarding your point.

You ran from both challenges. You're clearly just babbling about topics you don't understand.

 

[ReinyDays]

Astrophysics? You're all over the map with your crazy now.

Radiative physics is heavily involved in astrophysics ... what physics did you think astronomers studied? ... LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL ... fucking moron ... those aren't pinholes in the firmament, silly, those points of light are radiative physics ...

Then I asked you to tell us why the T^4 relationship matters regarding your point.

The temperature term is important when discussing temperature ... duh ...

Do you know which factor we're discussing yet? ... when you get to high school, you'll be offer a class in "algebra", where you'll learn that, in simple cases, changing one factor will change another factor in a very predictable way ... y = 2x + 2 ... SB is only a little more complicated, but the same applies ... what factor are we changing to get our predictable change in temperature? ... this T^4 term that confuses you ...

SB says we have to add great amounts of CO2 to our atmosphere in order to change temperatures a little ... thus, you and chick have to deny this ... because the math says you're wrong ... do the arithmetic yourself if you don't believe me ...

[I went ahead and color coded the more important words for you ... so you can better understand what this has to do with temperatures - Me]

 

[Crick]

Radiative physics is heavily involved in astrophysics ... what physics did you think astronomers studied? ... LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL ... fucking moron ... those aren't pinholes in the firmament, silly, those points of light are radiative physics ...

Are you claiming to be an astrophysicist now? SB is used in astrophysics but there is a great deal more there. And, of course, that doesn't answer the question that's been asked of you. What bearing do you think SB has on AGW? You seem to think it refutes it. Please explain.

The temperature term is important when discussing temperature ... duh ...

Do you know which factor we're discussing yet? ... when you get to high school, you'll be offer a class in "algebra", where you'll learn that, in simple cases, changing one factor will change another factor in a very predictable way ... y = 2x + 2 ... SB is only a little more complicated, but the same applies ... what factor are we changing to get our predictable change in temperature? ... this T^4 term that confuses you ...

SB says we have to add great amounts of CO2 to our atmosphere in order to change temperatures a little ... thus, you and chick have to deny this ... because the math says you're wrong ... do the arithmetic yourself if you don't believe me ...

[I went ahead and color coded the more important words for you ... so you can better understand what this has to do with temperatures - Me]

That you think SB is a difficult thing to work with makes me think algebra was your last math class. Yes or no, do you know how to solve differential equations? If so, which method do you most often use.

Radiative physics is heavily involved in astrophysics ... what physics did you think astronomers studied? ... LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL ... fucking moron ... those aren't pinholes in the firmament, silly, those points of light are radiative physics ...

Those points of light are a great deal more. Give this a quick review: Astrophysics - Wikipedia
"Astrophysics is a science that employs the methods and principles of physics and chemistry in the study of astronomical objects and phenomena.[1][2] As one of the founders of the discipline, James Keeler, said, Astrophysics "seeks to ascertain the nature of the heavenly bodies, rather than their positions or motions in space–what they are, rather than where they are."[3] Among the subjects studied are the Sun (solar physics), other stars, galaxies, extrasolar planets, the interstellar medium and the cosmic microwave background.[4][5] Emissions from these objects are examined across all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the properties examined include luminosity, density, temperature, and chemical composition. Because astrophysics is a very broad subject, astrophysicists apply concepts and methods from many disciplines of physics, including classical mechanics, electromagnetism, statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, relativity, nuclear and particle physics, and atomic and molecular physics."

The temperature term is important when discussing temperature ... duh ...

Do you know which factor we're discussing yet? ... when you get to high school, you'll be offer a class in "algebra", where you'll learn that, in simple cases, changing one factor will change another factor in a very predictable way ... y = 2x + 2 ... SB is only a little more complicated, but the same applies ... what factor are we changing to get our predictable change in temperature? ... this T^4 term that confuses you ...

SB says we have to add great amounts of CO2 to our atmosphere in order to change temperatures a little ... thus, you and chick have to deny this ... because the math says you're wrong ... do the arithmetic yourself if you don't believe me ...

You're the one with the extraordinary claim. Show us the arithmetic you believe disproves the thousands of real scientists who accept AGW.

 

[jc456]

and yet...

 

[EMH]

Show us the arithmetic you believe disproves the thousands of real scientists who accept AGW

No math required. We have highly correlated data from satellites and balloons documenting that as Co2 increased, atmospheric temps did not.

THEORY REJECTED

 

[ReinyDays]

Are you claiming to be an astrophysicist now? SB is used in astrophysics but there is a great deal more there. And, of course, that doesn't answer the question that's been asked of you. What bearing do you think SB has on AGW? You seem to think it refutes it. Please explain.

That you think SB is a difficult thing to work with makes me think algebra was your last math class. Yes or no, do you know how to solve differential equations? If so, which method do you most often use.

Those points of light are a great deal more. Give this a quick review: Astrophysics - Wikipedia
"Astrophysics is a science that employs the methods and principles of physics and chemistry in the study of astronomical objects and phenomena.[1][2] As one of the founders of the discipline, James Keeler, said, Astrophysics "seeks to ascertain the nature of the heavenly bodies, rather than their positions or motions in space–what they are, rather than where they are."[3] Among the subjects studied are the Sun (solar physics), other stars, galaxies, extrasolar planets, the interstellar medium and the cosmic microwave background.[4][5] Emissions from these objects are examined across all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the properties examined include luminosity, density, temperature, and chemical composition. Because astrophysics is a very broad subject, astrophysicists apply concepts and methods from many disciplines of physics, including classical mechanics, electromagnetism, statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, relativity, nuclear and particle physics, and atomic and molecular physics."

You're the one with the extraordinary claim. Show us the arithmetic you believe disproves the thousands of real scientists who accept AGW.

The temperature term is important when discussing temperature ... stupid ... let's go through SB, factor-by-factor ... why are you afraid to do this? ...

Differential equations:

This is the solution ... the trick is integrating it ... there's a million dollar prize for the first to do so ... but in the general case, tensor calculus is easier to work than diffy Q's ... if you'd ever get around to reading Dr Hanson's textbook on Climate, you'll se even he only uses the stress tensor, and doesn't fool around with diffy Q's ...

Climate model - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

... says SB ... buck-o ... God you're fucking stupid ...

 

[mamooth]

Cool, I've finally gotten this one to come close to stating a point.

SB says we have to add great amounts of CO2 to our atmosphere in order to change temperatures a little ...

Bzzzzt, no. Dear lord, no.

The logarithmic nature of CO2 feedback is due to spectral windows getting saturated. It has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

I'm not sure why you think S-B has anything to do with it. You seem to be classifying earth as a gray body, and then classifying CO2 as something that changes earth's albedo, which is totally wrong.

Global warming isn't about the earth's surface absorbing more heat from the sun. It's about the earth's atmosphere not letting that heat back out as readily. The heat absorbed by the earth's surface stays the same, so if you go strictly by S-B, there should be no temperature change.

[I went ahead and color coded the more important words for you ... so you can better understand what this has to do with temperatures - Me]

In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to actually be smart. That's why I can do it. You're kind of dull, so you just look butthurt when you try.

 

[EMH]

It's about the earth's atmosphere not letting that heat back out as readily

LMFAO!!!


Never mind the two and only two measures we have of atmospheric temps both show NO WARMING in highly correlated fashion.


Correlation coefficient of Co2 on temperature = Absolute ZERO

 

[Crick]

The temperature term is important when discussing temperature ... stupid ... let's go through SB, factor-by-factor ... why are you afraid to do this? ...

Differential equations:

This is the solution ... the trick is integrating it ... there's a million dollar prize for the first to do so ... but in the general case, tensor calculus is easier to work than diffy Q's ... if you'd ever get around to reading Dr Hanson's textbook on Climate, you'll se even he only uses the stress tensor, and doesn't fool around with diffy Q's ...

Climate model - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

... says SB ... buck-o ... God you're fucking stupid ...

Very nice cut and paste. But it's Diff EQ.

 

[ReinyDays]

Very nice cut and paste. But it's Diff EQ.

You didn't recognize Navier/Stokes equations ... shame on you ...

The temperature term is important when discussing temperature ... stupid ... let's go through SB, factor-by-factor ... why are you afraid to do this? ... (color coded especial for you) ...