RSS shows NO RECORDS set in 2014

[asterism]

In a convecting atmosphere? Okay mr weatherman, let's hear it.

What is the primary heat exchange mechanism of the earth? Water vapor and air movement.. Convection is warm water vapor rising until its heat is released to space and it then renucleates and forms drops, falling back to earth to repeat the process. The same process that renders CO2 mute in our atmosphere.

 

[IanC]

In a convecting atmosphere? Okay mr weatherman, let's hear it.

What is the primary heat exchange mechanism of the earth? Water vapor and air movement.. Convection is warm water vapor rising until its heat is released to space and it then renucleates and forms drops, falling back to earth to repeat the process. The same process that renders CO2 mute in our atmosphere.

Interesting video. The computer model doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to the first results of data from the new observatory.

 

[asterism]

In a convecting atmosphere? Okay mr weatherman, let's hear it.

What is the primary heat exchange mechanism of the earth? Water vapor and air movement.. Convection is warm water vapor rising until its heat is released to space and it then renucleates and forms drops, falling back to earth to repeat the process. The same process that renders CO2 mute in our atmosphere.

Interesting video. The computer model doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to the first results of data from the new observatory.

It certainly predicts a non-uniform distribution of carbon dioxide.

 

[IanC]

In a convecting atmosphere? Okay mr weatherman, let's hear it.

What is the primary heat exchange mechanism of the earth? Water vapor and air movement.. Convection is warm water vapor rising until its heat is released to space and it then renucleates and forms drops, falling back to earth to repeat the process. The same process that renders CO2 mute in our atmosphere.

yes, even Trenberth's Cartoon shows that the majority of the energy leaving the surface is carried by latent heat/convection. only once that energy has bypassed the GHG/Co2 bottleneck at the surface does radiation become the main escape factor above the cloud tops.

 

[Crick]

In a convecting atmosphere? Okay mr weatherman, let's hear it.

What is the primary heat exchange mechanism of the earth? Water vapor and air movement.. Convection is warm water vapor rising until its heat is released to space and it then renucleates and forms drops, falling back to earth to repeat the process. The same process that renders CO2 mute in our atmosphere.

Please explain how convection "renders CO2 mute in our atmosphere". Are you suggesting that it in some way cancels radiative transfer?

"Convection is warm water vapor rising until its heat is released to space". Close, but no cigar. Warm water vapor rising is simply a transport mechanism. Convection is conduction with flow. You cannot conduct thermal energy to a vacuum. The transfer of thermal energy to space takes place entirely radiatively. And very, very little of that water vapor makes it to the top of the stratosphere. The stratosphere is very cold and very dry. Convection is the largest process moving energy about within the Earth's climate, but it is not the mechanism by which the Earth sends energy to space.

 

[Crick]

only once that energy has bypassed the GHG/Co2 bottleneck at the surface does radiation become the main escape factor above the cloud tops.

At high altitudes there is very little water vapor so the only bottleneck left is GHGs. That has been the understanding of the greenhouse effect for the last for the last 80 years or so, so it certainly does't hamper AGW.

 

[Old Rocks]

In a convecting atmosphere? Okay mr weatherman, let's hear it.

What is the primary heat exchange mechanism of the earth? Water vapor and air movement.. Convection is warm water vapor rising until its heat is released to space and it then renucleates and forms drops, falling back to earth to repeat the process. The same process that renders CO2 mute in our atmosphere.

Interesting video. The computer model doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to the first results of data from the new observatory.

Second time you have said that without any basis.

 

[Billy_Bob]

RSS shows this year was 24th in the warmest years according to record keeping....

 

[Billy_Bob]

only once that energy has bypassed the GHG/Co2 bottleneck at the surface does radiation become the main escape factor above the cloud tops.

At high altitudes there is very little water vapor so the only bottleneck left is GHGs. That has been the understanding of the greenhouse effect for the last for the last 80 years or so, so it certainly does't hamper AGW.

As CO2 is NOT WELL MIXED and gravity has an effect on molecular weight, high in the atmosphere allows rapid transition to space...

 

[edthecynic]

so a 'champion among deniers' is willing to state that he thinks one of the global datasets is too low. are there any 'champions among warmistas' that are willing to state that any of the global datasets are too high?

Let me get this straight, you want honest people to lie because a denier finally told the truth.

 

[IanC]

so a 'champion among deniers' is willing to state that he thinks one of the global datasets is too low. are there any 'champions among warmistas' that are willing to state that any of the global datasets are too high?

Let me get this straight, you want honest people to lie because a denier finally told the truth.

I assume that those in charge of the various global datasets honestly believe that their products are best and most accurate that can be presented. UAH are willing to state that they think RSS is giving low results even if that 'dilutes the message'. On the other hand, the surface station datasets seem to be in a race with each other to find new 'adjustments' to increase the trend. I think belief in your own methods (within reason) is more honorable than a race to keep up with consensus.

Satellite data is complex to work with and the calculations are constantly being checked and refined. On the other hand, station data methodologies seem to be accepted with little cross checking before they are accepted, and live forever in the code no matter how buggy the results seem to be.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I assume that those in charge of the various global datasets honestly believe that their products are best and most accurate that can be presented. UAH are willing to state that they think RSS is giving low results even if that 'dilutes the message'. On the other hand, the surface station datasets seem to be in a race with each other to find new 'adjustments' to increase the trend. I think belief in your own methods (within reason) is more honorable than a race to keep up with consensus.

Satellite data is complex to work with and the calculations are constantly being checked and refined. On the other hand, station data methodologies seem to be accepted with little cross checking before they are accepted, and live forever in the code no matter how buggy the results seem to be.

When you take those adjusted data sets and use USCRN to verify you find that the adjustments were in the wrong direction amplifying the error. The USCRN has shown all adjustments wrong to date. Having a 100% failure rate as a global warming alarmist is funny to watch.

 

[IanC]

I assume that those in charge of the various global datasets honestly believe that their products are best and most accurate that can be presented. UAH are willing to state that they think RSS is giving low results even if that 'dilutes the message'. On the other hand, the surface station datasets seem to be in a race with each other to find new 'adjustments' to increase the trend. I think belief in your own methods (within reason) is more honorable than a race to keep up with consensus.

Satellite data is complex to work with and the calculations are constantly being checked and refined. On the other hand, station data methodologies seem to be accepted with little cross checking before they are accepted, and live forever in the code no matter how buggy the results seem to be.

When you take those adjusted data sets and use USCRN to verify you find that the adjustments were in the wrong direction amplifying the error. The USCRN has shown all adjustments wrong to date. Having a 100% failure rate as a global warming alarmist is funny to watch.

A few years ago NOAA set up some experimental stations with multiple types of equipment, various distances from building, etc. The preliminary results didn't jibe with the current adjustments, especially with UHI. It bothers me that follow up information hasn't been made public, or that the original report seems to be missing although it may just be my poor googling skills. I have noticed that links to embarrassing papers seem to disappear while press releases to faulty CAGW papers live forever.

 

[Crick]

Are you suggesting that the conspiring warmers control Google or the nation's multitudinous file servers?

 

[IanC]

Are you suggesting that the conspiring warmers control Google or the nation's multitudinous file servers?

That is an interesting question considering the history of Wikipedia and W Connelly. I was thinking it was Google's algorithms for age and interest in a story but it may also be something less benign.

 

[Crick]

What is the history of Wikipedia and W Connelly? For that matter, who is W Connelly? The Connolly clan that we've been talking about consists of Dr.s Michael, Ronan and Imelda Connolly. You may read their CVs at About Us - Global Warming Solved

 

[mamooth]

Willam Connolley is British scientist who also blogs under the name "Stoat", and who has been an editor at Wikipedia. Thus, he's a convenient scapegoat for deniers to point at when they claim the vast socialist conspiracy has taken over wikipedia. Inbred uberwanker Delingpole wrote a crazy dishonest screed about him.

Climategate the corruption of Wikipedia 8211 Telegraph Blogs

Which Connolley rips apart point-by-point here.

I am all powerful part 2 8211 Stoat

This longer piece talks about such mob action (WUWT called out the dogs to attack en masse and anonymously) against experts on Wikipedia.

Know It All - The New Yorker
---
For all its protocol, Wikipedia’s bureaucracy doesn’t necessarily favor truth. In March, 2005, William Connolley, a climate modeller at the British Antarctic Survey, in Cambridge, was briefly a victim of an edit war over the entry on global warming, to which he had contributed. After a particularly nasty confrontation with a skeptic, who had repeatedly watered down language pertaining to the greenhouse effect, the case went into arbitration. “User William M. Connolley strongly pushes his POV with systematic removal of any POV which does not match his own,” his accuser charged in a written deposition. “His views on climate science are singular and narrow.” A decision from the arbitration committee was three months in coming, after which Connolley was placed on a humiliating one-revert-a-day parole. The punishment was later revoked, and Connolley is now an admin, with two thousand pages on his watchlist—a feature that enables users to compile a list of entries and to be notified when changes are made to them. He says that Wikipedia’s entry on global warming may be the best page on the subject anywhere on the Web. Nevertheless, Wales admits that in this case the system failed. It can still seem as though the user who spends the most time on the site—or who yells the loudest—wins.

Connolley believes that Wikipedia “gives no privilege to those who know what they’re talking about,” a view that is echoed by many academics and former contributors, including Larry Sanger, who argues that too many Wikipedians are fundamentally suspicious of experts and unjustly confident of their own opinions.
---

 

[Billy_Bob]

Willam Connolley is British scientist who also blogs under the name "Stoat", and who has been an editor at Wikipedia. Thus, he's a convenient scapegoat for deniers to point at when they claim the vast socialist conspiracy has taken over wikipedia. Inbred uberwanker Delingpole wrote a crazy dishonest screed about him.

Climategate the corruption of Wikipedia 8211 Telegraph Blogs

Which Connolley rips apart point-by-point here.

I am all powerful part 2 8211 Stoat

This longer piece talks about such mob action (WUWT called out the dogs to attack en masse and anonymously) against experts on Wikipedia.

Know It All - The New Yorker
---
For all its protocol, Wikipedia’s bureaucracy doesn’t necessarily favor truth. In March, 2005, William Connolley, a climate modeller at the British Antarctic Survey, in Cambridge, was briefly a victim of an edit war over the entry on global warming, to which he had contributed. After a particularly nasty confrontation with a skeptic, who had repeatedly watered down language pertaining to the greenhouse effect, the case went into arbitration. “User William M. Connolley strongly pushes his POV with systematic removal of any POV which does not match his own,” his accuser charged in a written deposition. “His views on climate science are singular and narrow.” A decision from the arbitration committee was three months in coming, after which Connolley was placed on a humiliating one-revert-a-day parole. The punishment was later revoked, and Connolley is now an admin, with two thousand pages on his watchlist—a feature that enables users to compile a list of entries and to be notified when changes are made to them. He says that Wikipedia’s entry on global warming may be the best page on the subject anywhere on the Web. Nevertheless, Wales admits that in this case the system failed. It can still seem as though the user who spends the most time on the site—or who yells the loudest—wins.

Connolley believes that Wikipedia “gives no privilege to those who know what they’re talking about,” a view that is echoed by many academics and former contributors, including Larry Sanger, who argues that too many Wikipedians are fundamentally suspicious of experts and unjustly confident of their own opinions.
---

William Connolley is a revisionist troll who always edits Wiki to his political agenda and socialist point of view.. He is a piece of crap and the whole reason wiki is worthless as a source for any information.

 

[IanC]

Are you suggesting that the conspiring warmers control Google or the nation's multitudinous file servers?

That is an interesting question considering the history of Wikipedia and W Connelly. I was thinking it was Google's algorithms for age and interest in a story but it may also be something less benign.

Sorry I gave you the wrong spelling of his name. W C was one of the original members of RealClimate. He spent years rewriting climate change articles on Wikipedia, to the extent that about 5000 of the 20000 revision are credited to him. He finally got his editor's authority taken away for his one-sided and heavy handed treatment of all things skeptical. It is an interesting and insightful chapter of climate science that meshes seamlessly into the point of view presented by the climate gate emails.

 

[mamooth]

W C was one of the original members of RealClimate. He spent years rewriting climate change articles on Wikipedia, to the extent that about 5000 of the 20000 revision are credited to him.

Almost all of which had nothing to do with climate science.

If you'd read my link, you'd have known that. But you didn't. It didn't come from a couple kook blogs, therefore you don't want to see it. The official cult line is that Connolley single-handedly rigged wikipedia, so all cultists are required parrot that line .