Recent Rapid SST Rise

[jc456]

Flasks are cheap ... so is air ... I'd run the the whole damn spectrum ... 1 ppm all the way to 1,000,000,000 ppm ... and wavelength by wavelength ... mix in water ammonia methane ether marijuana esters ketones rayon pollen salt flu death dust cat hair dog hair rabbit hair ...

Volcanic gases volcanic liquids volcanic solids ... non-volcanic gases non-volcanic liquids non-volcanic solids ...

This is tax payer money ... spend at will ...

works for me!!!! The question is, why the settled scientists didn't do that?

 

[ReinyDays]

works for me!!!! The question is, why the settled scientists didn't do that?

How sure can we be they haven't? ... we only hear from the blowhards who will say anything for money ... you think these idiots are going to publish findings that say they're wrong? ... every time you falsify your own theories, you're going to lose half your book sales ... so you'll need a day job ... and that's typically forecasting weather, saving lives today ...

However, I believe it is far more likely that most Atmospheric Scientists are undecided ... every climatologist interviewed on NPR all say "it's too soon to tell" ... and this is what they say to the scientific media ... read Dr Hanson's textbook on climatology and you won't learn very much about carbon dioxide's roll in GW ... what you will learn is how many different factors effect climate and how stupid it is to focus on just one ... or two if we're lucky ...

Everything is connected to everything else ... 1st Law of Ecology ...

=====

We both have been calling for this research since I joined these boards ... if The World ignores us, they'll certainly ignore Bing ...

 

[jc456]

ReinyDays

 

[EMH]

what you will learn is how many different factors effect climate and how stupid it is to focus on just one ... or two if we're lucky ...

Quantity of ice on Earth dictates Earth climate.

Controls ocean level, temperature both air and water, atmospheric thickness, humidity


Quantity of ice on Earth dictated by LAND NEAR POLES

90% of Earth ice on LAND MASS Antarctica
7% on Greeland
0.3% on Ellesmere


LAND MOVES

NOT THAT HARD TO FIGURE OUT....

 

[ReinyDays]

ReinyDays

Yeah? ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Quantity of ice on Earth dictates Earth climate.

Controls ocean level, temperature both air and water, atmospheric thickness, humidity


Quantity of ice on Earth dictated by LAND NEAR POLES

90% of Earth ice on LAND MASS Antarctica
7% on Greeland
0.3% on Ellesmere


LAND MOVES

NOT THAT HARD TO FIGURE OUT....

Publish ... maybe you'll get a Nobel Prize ... the Earth has been mostly ice-free during the Phanerozoic Eon (i.e. life on land) ... maybe you've never lived near the equator ... [giggle] ...

 

[EMH]

maybe you'll get a Nobel Prize

Just this...

obama climate silence 2010 2012 - Google Search

 

[jc456]

Yeah? ...

Thought you would be interested

 

[ReinyDays]

Thought you would be interested

I could barely understand him ... but yeah ... sounds like the theoretical basis for AGW ... including that bastard T^4 term ...

 

[jc456]

I could barely understand him ... but yeah ... sounds like the theoretical basis for AGW ... including that bastard T^4 term ...

Very hard to understand

 

[mamooth]

∆T = 5.35 W/m^2 k ln (CF/CO) ... this is the equation from classical physics,

Say what?

No, that's not from classical physics. That's from climate models.

If you disagree, please show us how to derive that equation from classical physics. Show all of your steps.

(This should be hilarious.)

what Oldham and his contemporaries worked out towards the end of the 19th Century ... integrating always gives values that are too high above violet ...

The ultraviolet catastrophe has zilch to do with climate science. It's plain to everyone that you're throwing around buzzwords and technobabble that you don't understand.

 

[ReinyDays]

No, that's not from classical physics. That's from climate models.

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW ... absolutely clueless ...

If you disagree, please show us how to derive that equation from classical physics. Show all of your steps.

(This should be hilarious.)


The ultraviolet catastrophe has zilch to do with climate science. It's plain to everyone that you're throwing around buzzwords and technobabble that you don't understand.

Fuck ... 5 seconds on Google:

"Deriving the Stefan-Boltzmann law from Planck’s law" -- Peter Haggstrom -- Aug 2022 ...

Weep them and sweet ... dumbass ...

 

[mamooth]

Fuck ... 5 seconds on Google:

"Deriving the Stefan-Boltzmann law from Planck’s law" -- Peter Haggstrom -- Aug 2022 ...

Here are your words, from post #143

∆T = 5.35 W/m^2 k ln (CF/CO) ... this is the equation from classical physics,

∆T = 5.35 W/m^2 k ln (CF/CO) is _not_ the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, dumbass. It's the estimation of climate forcing of CO2, derived from climate models.

Given that you don't even know what the S-B law is, why should anyone _not_ laugh at you? It's very clear you've never even taken freshman physics. You're just randomly spouting technobabble.

 

[EMH]

derived from climate models

because it sure as heck doesn't come from the actual data, which showed Co2 rising and atmospheric temperatures not...

 

[jc456]

Here are your words, from post #143



∆T = 5.35 W/m^2 k ln (CF/CO) is _not_ the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, dumbass. It's the estimation of climate forcing of CO2, derived from climate models.

Given that you don't even know what the S-B law is, why should anyone _not_ laugh at you? It's very clear you've never even taken freshman physics. You're just randomly spouting technobabble.

Can you answer?

Take Two objects side by side radiating at the same temperature, can either object get warmer?

 

[mamooth]

Can you answer?

Well, yeah. The issue is more "Can you ask a question that doesn't reveal how stupid you are?", and the answer to that is clearly "no".

Take Two objects side by side radiating at the same temperature, can either object get warmer?

And that's a stupid question because there's not enough information given to answer.

Are we talking about two objects alone in a vaccuum, with no radiation coming in from outside? In that case both objects would be getting cooler, though the sides facing each other would be cooling more slowly.

So, what was the point of asking that stupid question?

 

[jc456]

So, what was the point of asking that stupid question?

Can two side by side CO2 molecules in our atmosphere make the other warmer? Following your answer from the previous post, the radiating between would cool them more slowly. Right? Not get warmer. I'd prefer to know how adding more CO2 molecules can make the atmosphere warmer if they can't make the other CO2 molecules any warmer more than the IR they absorbed initially.

 

[Crick]

However, I believe it is far more likely that most Atmospheric Scientists are undecided ... every climatologist interviewed on NPR all say "it's too soon to tell" ... and this is what they say to the scientific media ...

Working backwards: NPR is not "the scientific media". A climatologist might say it's to soon to tell whether or not a specific storm was enabled by global warming, but very close to zero climatologists have ever given such a response to AGW for decades.

read Dr Hanson's textbook on climatology and you won't learn very much about carbon dioxide's roll in GW ... what you will learn is how many different factors effect climate and how stupid it is to focus on just one ... or two if we're lucky ...

Science doesn't focus on just one. And their studies of all the known factors show that CO2, by a wide margin, is the largest. Remember this chart or its many brethren?

Chapter 6: Short-lived Climate Forcers

.

www.ipcc.ch

 

[ding]

the greenhous effect has very little effect on ocean heat content. Is that correct?

The greenhouse effect of CO2 increasing from 300 ppm to 420 ppm has a slight affect on ambient temperature which affects the rate of heat transfer to outer space more than it affects deep ocean heat content. The climate sensitivity to changes in atmospheric CO2 is low.

 

[ding]

The belief that the climate of the planet is sensitive to atmospheric CO2 is ludicrous and unsupported by any empirical evidence.