The Inexorable Rising Seas

[Crick]

Do you know which definition of temperature we're using? ... do you know why there are two definitions of temperature? ... and, in SB, exactly where is temperature being measured? ...

How is this a discussion of SB versus AGW?

My information about thermodynamics is straight out of a first-year physics textbook

Hmm... mine comes from two semesters of Thermodynamics and one of Heat Transfer (non-equilibrium thermo)

... and SB is exhaustively discussed in any astrophysics class ... how scientists handle thermometers is taught is just about any lab class ...

"How scientists handle thermometers"??? Are you fucking kidding me? Where is the discussion of SB versus AGW?

I don't believe you when you say you have a college degree ...

I don't give a shit what you believe. Where is the discussion of SB versus AGW? You've been threatening me with this for months.

except maybe in some damn liberal art ... prove me wrong

Prove to all of us that you actually have something to say about SB versus AGW.

and tell me which definition of temperature

Why don't you just tell us which one you'd like to use AND THEN USE IT!!!

your using and how we use this definition in SB ... I already know your don't know why we use that definition in climatology ...

For god's sake just get the FUCK on with it.

 

[Crick]

Call me when anyone spewing doomsday acts like it’s doomsday.

Will do.

 

[Crick]

NOAA was caught lying and manipulating their data. Not a credible source.

Link, asshole.

 

[Crick]

"If you believe in things that you don't understand then you suffer... superstition ".

-- Stevie Wonder

Deep, man, really, really deep.

 

[Flash]

When? Who was caught? Who caught them 'lying'? Facts or stifle it.

Just one of many reports

NOAA Scientists Falsify Data to Dupe World Leaders on Climate Change

Scientific sleight-of-hand pushed economy-hobbling Paris Agreement.

observer.com

 

[multivita-man]

Just one of many reports

NOAA Scientists Falsify Data to Dupe World Leaders on Climate Change

Scientific sleight-of-hand pushed economy-hobbling Paris Agreement.

observer.com

A credible news website, online encyclopedia, or other unbiased source, please. You've directed my to a partisan editorial which in turn cited Rupert Murdoch-owned Daily Mail.

I assume you're referring to the email controversy involving the Climate Research Unit in the UK, which, as far as I can tell, had no known NOAA involvement. It's also worth noting that those emails were hacked and deliberated misrepresented.

So again, where's your evidence of climate data fraud? If you can direct me to a legit source I'll read it.

 

[Crick]

Just one of many reports

NOAA Scientists Falsify Data to Dupe World Leaders on Climate Change

Scientific sleight-of-hand pushed economy-hobbling Paris Agreement.

observer.com

https://www.science.org/content/article/how-culture-clash-noaa-led-flap-over-high-profile-warming-pause-study

Instead, the dispute appears to reflect long-standing tensions within NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), based in Asheville, North Carolina, over how new data sets are used for scientific research. The center is one the nation's major repositories for vetted earth observing data collected by satellites, ships, buoys, aircraft, and land-based instruments.​

​

In the blog post, Bates says that his complaints provide evidence that Karl had his "thumb on the scale" in an effort to discredit claims of a warming pause, and his team rushed to publish the paper so it could influence national and international climate talks. But Bates does not directly challenge the conclusions of Karl's study, and he never formally raised his concerns through internal NOAA mechanisms.​

​

Tuesday, in an interview with E&E News, Bates himself downplayed any suggestion of misconduct. "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," he told reporter Scott Waldman. And Bates told ScienceInsider that he is wary of his critique becoming a talking point for those skeptical of human-caused climate change. But it was important for this conversation about data integrity to happen, he says. "That's where I came down after a lot of soul searching. I knew people would misuse this. But you can't control other people," he says.​

So, the author of the expert in your linked article says you're misusing his complaint and that Karl did not "tamper with data".

NEXT...

 

[Cellblock2429]

It's not "again" fool. It never stopped.

Climate Change Indicators: Sea Level | US EPA

This indicator describes how sea level has changed over time. The indicator describes two types of sea level changes: absolute and relative.

www.epa.gov

/---/ It means NOT THIS SCAM AGAIN.

 

[ReinyDays]

How is this a discussion of SB versus AGW?

Gee ... I don't fucking know ... what does temperature have to do with global warming? ...

How do you measure warming, if not with thermometers? ... "Total irradiance is proportional to temperature to the fourth power" ... j* = oT^4 where o = the constant of proportionality ...

You're in way over your head if you can't even state the definition of temperature ... it's automatic, stupid; "average kinetic energy" ... now, why do you think "average kinetic energy" is increasing on Earth's surface ... IF solar irradiance is given as constant ... you do know what "constant" means don't you? ... because if actual irradiance was constant ... the Law of Physics demands the Earth's surface temperature be constant ...

This isn't SB verses AGW ... SB explains AGW ... dumbass ... I'd be better off teaching house cats to share nice with each other ...

 

[Crick]

/---/ It means NOT THIS SCAM AGAIN.

You do not believe the world's oceans are rising? Does that also mean you don't believe the world is getting warmer? If so, why?

 

[Flash]

A credible news website, online encyclopedia, or other unbiased source, please. You've directed my to a partisan editorial which in turn cited Rupert Murdoch-owned Daily Mail.

I assume you're referring to the email controversy involving the Climate Research Unit in the UK, which, as far as I can tell, had no known NOAA involvement. It's also worth noting that those emails were hacked and deliberated misrepresented.

So again, where's your evidence of climate data fraud? If you can direct me to a legit source I'll read it.

There are literally a thousand links to the subject of NOAA and NASA using fraudulent data that you can find with any of the search engines. It was the big news story when those agencies got caught.

At the end of the day both NOAA and NASA are political organizations. Under the Worthless Negro's and Potatohead administrations they used lies to further the AGW agenda. That is disgusting, isn't it?

The fact is that we have caught the Principle Scientists and the government agencies lying about the data and that is why there is no credibility.

You stupid uneducated Moon Bats are always in denial about the dishonesty of the AGW scammers just like you are in denial of the corruption of President Potatohead and the destruction of Liberal policies. You Moon Bats live in a world of denial. We would have thought that when the Climategate emails were expose where the scientist blatantly admitted they were lying that would have shut you turkeys up.

If AGW was real there would be no need to lie about the facts. Also, if it was real then the predictions would come true.

Man made global warming is bullshit and a scam. If you pulled your head out of your Moon Bat ass and looked at the facts you would know that.

 

[Crick]

Gee ... I don't fucking know ... what does temperature have to do with global warming? ...

You're not helping your case here.

How do you measure warming, if not with thermometers? ...

Thermistors, oxygen 18 isotope levels found in ice cores, diatoms, foramanifera and coral, tree ring widths, varves, pollen, charcoal, IR spectrum

"Total irradiance is proportional to temperature to the fourth power" ... j* = oT^4 where o = the constant of proportionality ...

Yes, you've said that before. Repeatedly.

You're in way over your head if you can't even state the definition of temperature ...

Why should you hesitate to show my ignorance on this topic? You promised me a discussion about SB that would refute AGW. Where is it?

it's automatic, stupid; "average kinetic energy" ... now, why do you think "average kinetic energy" is increasing on Earth's surface ... IF solar irradiance is given as constant ... you do know what "constant" means don't you? ... because if actual irradiance was constant ... the Law of Physics demands the Earth's surface temperature be constant ...

This isn't SB verses AGW ... SB explains AGW ... dumbass ... I'd be better off teaching house cats to share nice with each other ...

Is that it? You think we cannot be warming because irradiance is not increasing?

Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. Formulated in 1879 by Austrian physicist Josef Stefan as a result of his experimental studies, the same law was derived in 1884 by Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann from thermodynamic considerations: if E is the radiant heat energy emitted from a unit area in one second (that is, the power from a unit area) and T is the absolute temperature (in kelvins), then E = σT4, the Greek letter sigma (σ) representing the constant of proportionality, called the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. This constant has the value 5.670374419 × 10−8 watt per metre2 per K4. The law applies only to blackbodies, theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation.​

Stefan-Boltzmann law | Definition & Facts | Britannica

Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. The law applies only to blackbodies, theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation.

www.britannica.com

Take note of that last sentence there Rainy. Then let me know if we're done here or if you have something else you'd like to bring up.

 

[ReinyDays]

You're not helping your case here.

Thermistors, oxygen 18 isotope levels found in ice cores, diatoms, foramanifera and coral, tree ring widths, varves, pollen, charcoal, IR spectrum

Yes, you've said that before. Repeatedly.

Why should you hesitate to show my ignorance on this topic? You promised me a discussion about SB that would refute AGW. Where is it?

Is that it? You think we cannot be warming because irradiance is not increasing?

Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. Formulated in 1879 by Austrian physicist Josef Stefan as a result of his experimental studies, the same law was derived in 1884 by Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann from thermodynamic considerations: if E is the radiant heat energy emitted from a unit area in one second (that is, the power from a unit area) and T is the absolute temperature (in kelvins), then E = σT4, the Greek letter sigma (σ) representing the constant of proportionality, called the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. This constant has the value 5.670374419 × 10−8 watt per metre2 per K4. The law applies only to blackbodies, theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation.​

Stefan-Boltzmann law | Definition & Facts | Britannica

Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. The law applies only to blackbodies, theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation.

www.britannica.com

Take note of that last sentence there Rainy. Then let me know if we're done here or if you have something else you'd like to bring up.

If you don't know what temperature is ... what's the point of discussing temperature with you? ... you've stumbled on the first term ... how are we ever getting past fourth root relationships ...

 

[multivita-man]

There are literally a thousand links to the subject of NOAA and NASA using fraudulent data that you can find with any of the search engines. It was the big news story when those agencies got caught.

Again, anyone can put information on the internet. The sources you and other climate-change skeptics cite are almost always right-leaning political outlets that deliberately play with the truth. There may be thousands of links on the internet, but I challenge you to post some - even one - that can credibly show NASA and NOAA have fabricated their data. You can't. And even if you could show me one, it doesn't change the overwhelming volume of established data, papers, studies all showing that human activity is fucking with the atmosphere.

At the end of the day both NOAA and NASA are political organizations.

No, it's you who's being political here. NOAA and NASA are reporting data that shows the destructive force of modern pro-growth industrial activity, and you're afraid that the big, bad government is going to one day tell you that you have to make some sacrifices in terms of how you live. Well guess what, if governments don't force you to make those sacrifices, nature will. Count on it.

Under the Worthless Negro's and Potatohead administrations they used lies to further the AGW agenda. That is disgusting, isn't it?

lol, can't pass up a chance to throw some racism into a climate thread. That shows me all I need to know about your credibility on and knowledge of this subject.

The fact is that we have caught the Principle Scientists and the government agencies lying about the data and that is why there is no credibility.

The fact is, no you have not. The fact is, you read outlets that are consistent with your political/ideological biases, so you live in that world. You probably ignore the thousands and thousands of articles that prove you wrong and latch on for dear life for someone who shares the same biases you have. You read their propaganda to that effect. That's why people like you watch Fox News, Tucker Carlson, Jesse Waters...that's why you listen to AM radio or the satellite equivalent...because you want to get information that you already agree with. It's too psychologically uncomfortable to question your own beliefs and per chance admit that maybe the scientists really are right and maybe we do have a serious problem. I understand that, even relate to it, actually.

You stupid uneducated Moon Bats are always in denial about the dishonesty of the AGW scammers just like you are in denial of the corruption of President Potatohead and the destruction of Liberal policies. You Moon Bats live in a world of denial. We would have thought that when the Climategate emails were expose where the scientist blatantly admitted they were lying that would have shut you turkeys up.

If AGW was real there would be no need to lie about the facts. Also, if it was real then the predictions would come true.

Man made global warming is bullshit and a scam. If you pulled your head out of your Moon Bat ass and looked at the facts you would know that.

You believe what you want...Moon Bat, lol.

p.s. That's Baron Von Moon Bat to you, you plebe, lol!

 

[Flash]

Again, anyone can put information on the internet. The sources you and other climate-change skeptics cite are almost always right-leaning political outlets that deliberately play with the truth. There may be thousands of links on the internet, but I challenge you to post some - even one - that can credibly show NASA and NOAA have fabricated their data. You can't. And even if you could show me one, it doesn't change the overwhelming volume of established data, papers, studies all showing that human activity is fucking with the atmosphere.



No, it's you who's being political here. NOAA and NASA are reporting data that shows the destructive force of modern pro-growth industrial activity, and you're afraid that the big, bad government is going to one day tell you that you have to make some sacrifices in terms of how you live. Well guess what, if governments don't force you to make those sacrifices, nature will. Count on it.



lol, can't pass up a chance to throw some racism into a climate thread. That shows me all I need to know about your credibility on and knowledge of this subject.



The fact is, no you have not. The fact is, you read outlets that are consistent with your political/ideological biases, so you live in that world. You probably ignore the thousands and thousands of articles that prove you wrong and latch on for dear life for someone who shares the same biases you have finds ways to post propaganda to that effect. That's why people like you watch Fox News, Tucker Carlson, Jesse Waters...that's why you listen to AM radio or the satellite equivalent...because you want to get information that you already agree with. It's too psychologically uncomfortable to question your own beliefs and per chance admit that maybe the scientists really are right and maybe we do have a serious problem. I understand that, even relate to it, actually.



You believe what you want...Moon Bat, lol.

My god you are an idiot.

When both NASA and NOAA were caught lying about climate data it was new stories that were widely spread.

You little turkeys will deny anything, won't you?

Here is a source from the US government.

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records


“Now that Dr. Bates has confirmed that there were heated disagreements within NOAA about the quality and transparency of the data before publication, we know why NOAA fought transparency and oversight at every turn. Dr. Bates’ revelations and NOAA’s obstruction certainly lend credence to what I’ve expected all along – that the Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the president’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study. The Committee thanks Dr. Bates, a Department of Commerce Gold Medal winner for creating and implementing a standard to produce and preserve climate data, for exposing the previous administration’s efforts to push their costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity.”

 

[multivita-man]

My god you are an idiot.

No, it is you who is gullible -- so gullible that your best citation source is a blatantly partisan House committee. That committee acted in response to one blog post by a former NOAA scientist who later clarified what he meant.

This is easily fact-checkable.

No Data Manipulation at NOAA - FactCheck.org

Top Republicans on the House science committee claim a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist “confirmed” that his NOAA colleagues “manipulated” climate data for a 2015 study. But that scientist denies that he accused NOAA of manipulating data.

www.factcheck.org

Moreover, the scientist who was accused of manipulating the climate warming "hiatus" data had his findings supported by other studies.

New analysis shows Lamar Smith’s accusations on climate data are wrong

It wasn’t a political plot—temperatures really did get warmer.

arstechnica.com

Once again, you prove my point: you've gone down the partisan rabbit hole of sticking with sources of information who agree with you and only those. Moreover, these sources of yours don't do any scientific research. They don't publish data. They publish opinions and mostly misleading factual assertions about the topic. That is it. The scientists are the ones publishing the data based on scientific observation. If you want to challenge them, then find scientific experts of similar caliber who are in a position to challenge them with scientific facts. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

When both NASA and NOAA were caught lying about climate data it was new stories that were widely spread.

You little turkeys will deny anything, won't you?

Here is a source from the US government.

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records

“Now that Dr. Bates has confirmed that there were heated disagreements within NOAA about the quality and transparency of the data before publication, we know why NOAA fought transparency and oversight at every turn. Dr. Bates’ revelations and NOAA’s obstruction certainly lend credence to what I’ve expected all along – that the Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the president’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study. The Committee thanks Dr. Bates, a Department of Commerce Gold Medal winner for creating and implementing a standard to produce and preserve climate data, for exposing the previous administration’s efforts to push their costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity.”

A partisan committee led by climate-change skeptic partisans is not an official government source. It's a government record of testimony. That's it. In no way does this support your argument - at all.

 

[Crick]

My god you are an idiot.

When both NASA and NOAA were caught lying about climate data it was new stories that were widely spread.

You little turkeys will deny anything, won't you?

Here is a source from the US government.

Former NOAA Scientist Confirms Colleagues Manipulated Climate Records


“Now that Dr. Bates has confirmed that there were heated disagreements within NOAA about the quality and transparency of the data before publication, we know why NOAA fought transparency and oversight at every turn. Dr. Bates’ revelations and NOAA’s obstruction certainly lend credence to what I’ve expected all along – that the Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the president’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study. The Committee thanks Dr. Bates, a Department of Commerce Gold Medal winner for creating and implementing a standard to produce and preserve climate data, for exposing the previous administration’s efforts to push their costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity.”

This is the same issue with Bates complaining about Karl. Bates himself has stated that Karl did not tamper with data. Your claim is bullshit.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Will do.

Narrative fail.
Greenland ice mass is growing.

 

[Weatherman2020]

How about you show us some of these failed predictions? We've already gone through the list of 41 that you'd all been passed by your fossil fuel sources and not a single one of them was produced by an actual research scientist. Let's see the new list Whizzo.

I am still waiting for you to show me one prediction that’s been correct.

But your climate scientists are too busy flying private jets to climate conferences because they never heard of a zoom meeting.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Will do.

Narrative fail