UH OH Spaghetti Oh! Hansen says the temps have been flat!

[Saigon]

SSDD -

So just to point out the obvious - you did not answer my questions.

So you have presented absoliutely no reason whatsoever why climate change conducted by Finnish scientists should be ignored, and have no evidence that funding in Finland is in any way connected to the results of that research. (It isn't, btw.)

If you are actually genuinely interested in this topic, this is the point where you realise that your global conspiracy theory doesn't add up.

It is you who hasn't ansered the questions. I asked you what source they use in Finland for temperature data outside the borders of Finland. They don't have a worldwide surface stations network so they must get the data from outside thier borders from somewhere.....who do the get it from.

And you don't have the first clue as to whether or not money has corrupted the climate service in your country...faith does not make it true. Imagine, Finland's scientists don't get grant money for research.

I didn't answer your question because you can obviously answer this yourself -

- as long as countries like Finland continue to do independent research into their own climate there can be no conspiracy.

With a hundred or so research units spread around the world, each producing their own local data (and then sharing it), any rogue or manipulated data would quickly show up as being so when set into a global context. Can you imagine Norway, Finland & Denmark claiming the temperatures has risen 2C and Sweden saying theirs had fallen 2C - it would be fairly clear something was badly wrong with Swedish research, or that somehing very odd had happened.

University research in Finland is not, ever, funded according to its results. Such an accusation has never been made, and there is not evidence at all to suggest such a thing has ocurred. In fact, given the Finnish system, it basically couldn't occur.

Conspiracies without proof = fantasies.

Fantasies = a reason to ignore science.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW =/= Science

 

[SSDD]

True.

However you are incorrect, Trenberth's Energy Budget most certainly was made using computer models. Software written by people with no formal education nor training in software development.

Trenberth et.al, provided the numbers and described the terribly flawed physics in this paper. It remains the basis for the AGW hypothesis.


Kiehl, J. T. and Trenberth, K. E., 1997

Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 78, 197-208.

 

[SSDD]

I didn't answer your question because you can obviously answer this yourself -

- as long as countries like Finland continue to do independent research into their own climate there can be no conspiracy.

So your claim is that Finland uses no data from GISS, NOAA, NCDC, USHCN, NASA, WMO, Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), NIWA, CRU, GHCN, or KNMI? There are others who are known to have massaged their data, but suffice to say that if Finland is using data from any of these sources, they are pepretuating the error cascade.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

I am trying to be patient here, I really am.

Research conducted IN FINLAND, is conducted by FINNISH researchers. It is then shared internationally. There is no reason for Finland to use American data to analyze Finnish results.

The same statement can be made about several dozen other, largely developed, countries.

Because research is conducted independently by different universities and research units, any global conspiracy is impossible.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -
Research conducted IN FINLAND, is conducted by FINNISH researchers. It is then shared internationally. There is no reason for Finland to use American data to analyze Finnish results.

You aren't being patient, you are trying to dodge the fact that the entire scientific community is using massaged data...including the community in Finland.

So Finnish climate scientists are studying the global climate using only data collected within the borders of Finland? No data from anywhere else. Interesting.

How does that work, exactly, trying to extrapolate the global climate from data collected from an area that amounts to less than 0.07% of the earth?

The fact is that you are full of crap if you believe that your precious Finnish scientists are not using data from agencies outside of Finland.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Again, I really am trying to be patient with you, I really am.

Try reading my statement again, thinking about it a bit more seriously, and get back to me if you have a genuine question.

 

[SSDD]

Try reading my statement again, thinking about it a bit more seriously, and get back to me if you have a genuine question.

I have and it is patently rediculous to suggest that Finland's climate scientists are only working with data they gathered in Finland. To suggest that they aren't working with global data is beyond silly and since they are unable to collect global data on their own since they have no global collection network, they must be getting their global data from somewhere else, ie someone who is known to be massaging their data.

If they are genuinely only working with data from within Finland, then the don't even merit talking to as they have no idea what the global climate is like.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

You've completely misunderstood my statement, whether by accident or design I have no idea.

Either way, I'm not very interested in playing games. I've never understood posters who operate from the standpoint of "I bet you can't make me understand this." If you want to believe Finnish scientists base their analysis of the Finnish climate based on American data - go right ahead.

 

[SSDD]

Are you saying that Finnish climate scientists have no interest in the global climate and only concern themselves with the climate within the borders of Finland?

 

[ReallyMeow]

Except that CO2 does not trap heat. I believe that you believe it does so tell me, how do you believe CO2 traps heat.

Yes it does.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX4eOg2LaSY]Carbon Dioxide Trapping of Earth's Heat - A Laboratory Experiment - YouTube[/ame]

Sorry guy, but that is not an experiment showing that CO2 can trap heat. As was pointed out to you, the experiment is an example of the ideal gas laws at work. Further, the experiment was rigged as the camera was set to only view a very narrow (even narrower than the CO2 absorption bands) section of the spectrum.
There are no actual experiments that demonstrate that CO2 can "trap" heat because it can not. There are experiments galore that demonstrate the variousl effects of the ideal gas laws which can easily fool the uneducated, but none that demonstrate a heat "trapping" property of CO2. You can't demonstrate in reality something that doesn't exist.

But feel free to describe how you believe CO2 can "trap" heat.

Ok, you're half way there. now, that heat which otherwise was going to radiate back out into space, where is it now? Not in space.

Where do you believe it is? Do you believe the cool atmosphere can radiate heat back to the warmer surface of the earth when the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that this can not happen?

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

You're literally too stupid to argue with. Have you never felt a warm breeze on a summer night, or it being hot in the shade? Air is everywhere above the ground, there isnt an option to "go around".

and if it was narrower than the absorption bands, then why did it work? Because it was long enough, halfwit.

 

[SSDD]

You're literally too stupid to argue with. Have you never felt a warm breeze on a summer night, or it being hot in the shade? Air is everywhere above the ground, there isnt an option to "go around".

Why sure I have felt a warm breeze on a summer night...it is caused by the warm surface of the earth radiating heat, not by the cold sky radiating heat. And who said anything about "going around"

and if it was narrower than the absorption bands, then why did it work? Because it was long enough, halfwit.

I said that the camera was set to a very narrow absorption band, not narrower than the absorption bands. Read....and if proving that CO2 could trap heat were that easy, don't you think some of the big guys would do that sort of experiment and put the issue to rest? They don't because they would be laughed out of science for trying to fool anyone with that sort of bunk.. Those experiments are for fooling the poorly educated...no one else. Sorry you have to find out that you are poorly educated like that.

If you believe that experiment demonstrated some kind of "heat trapping" property of CO2, then I am afraid that it is you who finds himself a few IQ points short my friend.

 

[Koios]

Guess you have never looked up the course requirements for eithen climatologist or meteorologist. A meteorologist is far better educated than a climatologist. Hell, you only need one semester of calculus to be a climatologist...if you want to be a meteorologist, you need 3 semesters. The same holds true in physics, and chemistry.

Really? What is the educational background of the meterologist on your favorite local news channel?

My favorite meteorologist has a degree in geology and chemistry plus he was a Rhodes Scolar quarter finalist. He doesn't have a meteorology degree however. He did serve as a consulting meteorologist to the Nevada Dept. of Transportation so they didn't seem to think that was a detriment.

And he's on your local TV news' weather segment?

 

[ReallyMeow]

You're literally too stupid to argue with. Have you never felt a warm breeze on a summer night, or it being hot in the shade? Air is everywhere above the ground, there isnt an option to "go around".

Why sure I have felt a warm breeze on a summer night...it is caused by the warm surface of the earth radiating heat, not by the cold sky radiating heat.

No dummy, the air is warm because THE AIR IS WARM. FFS. Its not radiating to you from the ground across a vacuum.

And who said anything about "going around"

You did.

Further, the experiment was rigged as the camera was set to only view a very narrow (even narrower than the CO2 absorption bands) section of the spectrum.

The band is the band, just because you're only looking at the band, or even a teensy sliver of the band doesnt change the fact that the experiment successfully displayed that heat is being blocked by co2 at that band- you're going to tell me its actually absorbing MORE? SUPER! That just makes me more right.

 

[westwall]

Really? What is the educational background of the meterologist on your favorite local news channel?

My favorite meteorologist has a degree in geology and chemistry plus he was a Rhodes Scolar quarter finalist. He doesn't have a meteorology degree however. He did serve as a consulting meteorologist to the Nevada Dept. of Transportation so they didn't seem to think that was a detriment.

And he's on your local TV news' weather segment?

Yes, he's the chief meteorologist for the station.

 

[westwall]

You're literally too stupid to argue with. Have you never felt a warm breeze on a summer night, or it being hot in the shade? Air is everywhere above the ground, there isnt an option to "go around".

Why sure I have felt a warm breeze on a summer night...it is caused by the warm surface of the earth radiating heat, not by the cold sky radiating heat.

No dummy, the air is warm because THE AIR IS WARM. FFS. Its not radiating to you from the ground across a vacuum.

And who said anything about "going around"

You did.

Further, the experiment was rigged as the camera was set to only view a very narrow (even narrower than the CO2 absorption bands) section of the spectrum.

The band is the band, just because you're only looking at the band, or even a teensy sliver of the band doesnt change the fact that the experiment successfully displayed that heat is being blocked by co2 at that band- you're going to tell me its actually absorbing MORE? SUPER! That just makes me more right.

Ummmm you're only partially correct there nimrod. The air is warm because the ground radiates heat that then warms the air. Take away the heat from the ground and the air cools off PDQ.

 

[polarbear]

You're literally too stupid to argue with. Have you never felt a warm breeze on a summer night, or it being hot in the shade? Air is everywhere above the ground, there isnt an option to "go around".

Why sure I have felt a warm breeze on a summer night...it is caused by the warm surface of the earth radiating heat, not by the cold sky radiating heat. And who said anything about "going around"

and if it was narrower than the absorption bands, then why did it work? Because it was long enough, halfwit.

I said that the camera was set to a very narrow absorption band, not narrower than the absorption bands. Read....and if proving that CO2 could trap heat were that easy, don't you think some of the big guys would do that sort of experiment and put the issue to rest? They don't because they would be laughed out of science for trying to fool anyone with that sort of bunk.. Those experiments are for fooling the poorly educated...no one else. Sorry you have to find out that you are poorly educated like that.

If you believe that experiment demonstrated some kind of "heat trapping" property of CO2, then I am afraid that it is you who finds himself a few IQ points short my friend.

There is no end to suckers that get taken in by these CO2 "lab experiment" videos that show how CO2 "traps heat". And when You point out that the video did not show that then the insults start flying...
Here we have yet another video where a tube is saturated with CO2 and by the time any effect has been "shown" the tube was saturated with CO2. Let`s not forget that the candle light was transmitted to the infrared cam just as good as to the video camera he used to film his video before he turned on the valve of the CO2 high pressure cylinder.
And by his own admission the air was then what he said it was, 385 ppm CO2. It`s a great video if You wanted to show how much down-coming IR from the sun would be blocked out by the lethal CO2 concentration in this plexiglass tube....and that`s all this experiment did show, that so much of the incoming IR would be absorbed in the first km at the upper atmosphere that we could expect global cooling because there is no way the earth with it`s albedo could make up this amount of energy by zero albedo "black-body" conversion of shorter wavelength light which passed through.
And again the same fraud with the absorbed light being converted to "trapped heat"...while in reality the IR which is "absorbed" has only been diffused in all possible directions after light absorbed by the O=C=O scissoring and stretching vibrational bands has been re-emitted by the Carbon dioxide molecules. It`s not "trapped" energy else the CO2 would not be able to absorb any more light of this wavelength. But it does continue to do so, because it instantaneously re-emits the previously IR in all possible directions . The IR detector at the other end of the path can only register incident light. So at a 50% absorption 1/2 of the light at a specific wavelength has changed direction...in no way does that mean, that 50 % of this "absorbed light" has been "trapped" as heat !

To convert all the energy which was absorbed as IR to heat all other energy flow avenues have to be denied. Such as diffused re-radiation escaping in all possible directions, as well as gas expansion and heat convection. The latter being by far the largest heat loss component.
There is a good reason why the only "experiments" are only "thought experiments" like Spencer`s outlandish "Yes Virginia" and videos heating up > 90% CO2 in a closed bottle.
And as far as the CO2 changed the candle image as seen by an infrared cam,...that`s nothing. You should see how much more drastic the effects are when You increase the moisture of the air in that tube instead of increasing the CO2 to lethal concentrations.
The other thing that stands out in this particular video is the usual X-Y graph theatricals, which exaggerate the Y-scale (the CO2) to achieve the desired drama effect...but at the same time it then reveals that during the summer the CO2 ppm are as low as the winter CO2 ppm`s 20 years earlier.
So how much "back radiation" heat can be trapped during the winter when most of the northern hemisphere has an albedo of better than 0.8...and in the summer when the albedo is lower so is the CO2...at levels it was during a winter 20 years ago...no wonder these "climate models" still get it so wrong.

 

[polarbear]

You're literally too stupid to argue with. Have you never felt a warm breeze on a summer night, or it being hot in the shade? Air is everywhere above the ground, there isnt an option to "go around".

No dummy, the air is warm because THE AIR IS WARM. FFS. Its not radiating to you from the ground across a vacuum.

The band is the band, just because you're only looking at the band, or even a teensy sliver of the band doesnt change the fact that the experiment successfully displayed that heat is being blocked by co2 at that band- you're going to tell me its actually absorbing MORE? SUPER! That just makes me more right.

"The air is warm because the air is warm"...???...w.th.f is that supposed to mean ?
By the way all the heat that heated the ground came from the sun across a 150 million kilometer vacuum.
Or "The band is the band"...? and "teensy sliver of the band"... "the experiment successfully displayed that heat is being blocked by co2 at that band"

If you only knew just how narrow the band is where CO2 can absorb IR and compared that to water vapor (as in humidity )...but that would presume that You would have a clue about physics,
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

...so let`s not even go there.
Amazing how stupid the people really are who call others stupid.

 

[ReallyMeow]

Why sure I have felt a warm breeze on a summer night...it is caused by the warm surface of the earth radiating heat, not by the cold sky radiating heat.

No dummy, the air is warm because THE AIR IS WARM. FFS. Its not radiating to you from the ground across a vacuum.

You did.

Further, the experiment was rigged as the camera was set to only view a very narrow (even narrower than the CO2 absorption bands) section of the spectrum.

The band is the band, just because you're only looking at the band, or even a teensy sliver of the band doesnt change the fact that the experiment successfully displayed that heat is being blocked by co2 at that band- you're going to tell me its actually absorbing MORE? SUPER! That just makes me more right.

Ummmm you're only partially correct there nimrod. The air is warm because the ground radiates heat that then warms the air. Take away the heat from the ground and the air cools off PDQ.

Yes, when it radiates from the ground some of it is absorbed by the air instead of flying off into space, so when we add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere more of this heat is being absorbed instead of flying off into space. You've failed to contradict me: co2 traps heat.

You're literally too stupid to argue with. Have you never felt a warm breeze on a summer night, or it being hot in the shade? Air is everywhere above the ground, there isnt an option to "go around".

Why sure I have felt a warm breeze on a summer night...it is caused by the warm surface of the earth radiating heat, not by the cold sky radiating heat. And who said anything about "going around"

and if it was narrower than the absorption bands, then why did it work? Because it was long enough, halfwit.

I said that the camera was set to a very narrow absorption band, not narrower than the absorption bands. Read....and if proving that CO2 could trap heat were that easy, don't you think some of the big guys would do that sort of experiment and put the issue to rest? They don't because they would be laughed out of science for trying to fool anyone with that sort of bunk.. Those experiments are for fooling the poorly educated...no one else. Sorry you have to find out that you are poorly educated like that.

If you believe that experiment demonstrated some kind of "heat trapping" property of CO2, then I am afraid that it is you who finds himself a few IQ points short my friend.

There is no end to suckers that get taken in by these CO2 "lab experiment" videos that show how CO2 "traps heat". And when You point out that the video did not show that then the insults start flying...
Here we have yet another video where a tube is saturated with CO2 and by the time any effect has been "shown" the tube was saturated with CO2. Let`s not forget that the candle light was transmitted to the infrared cam just as good as to the video camera he used to film his video before he turned on the valve of the CO2 high pressure cylinder.
And by his own admission the air was then what he said it was, 385 ppm CO2. It`s a great video if You wanted to show how much down-coming IR from the sun would be blocked out by the lethal CO2 concentration in this plexiglass tube....and that`s all this experiment did show, that so much of the incoming IR would be absorbed in the first km at the upper atmosphere that we could expect global cooling because there is no way the earth with it`s albedo could make up this amount of energy by zero albedo "black-body" conversion of shorter wavelength light which passed through.
And again the same fraud with the absorbed light being converted to "trapped heat"...while in reality the IR which is "absorbed" has only been diffused in all possible directions after light absorbed by the O=C=O scissoring and stretching vibrational bands has been re-emitted by the Carbon dioxide molecules. It`s not "trapped" energy else the CO2 would not be able to absorb any more light of this wavelength. But it does continue to do so, because it instantaneously re-emits the previously IR in all possible directions . The IR detector at the other end of the path can only register incident light. So at a 50% absorption 1/2 of the light at a specific wavelength has changed direction...in no way does that mean, that 50 % of this "absorbed light" has been "trapped" as heat !

To convert all the energy which was absorbed as IR to heat all other energy flow avenues have to be denied. Such as diffused re-radiation escaping in all possible directions, as well as gas expansion and heat convection. The latter being by far the largest heat loss component.
There is a good reason why the only "experiments" are only "thought experiments" like Spencer`s outlandish "Yes Virginia" and videos heating up > 90% CO2 in a closed bottle.
And as far as the CO2 changed the candle image as seen by an infrared cam,...that`s nothing. You should see how much more drastic the effects are when You increase the moisture of the air in that tube instead of increasing the CO2 to lethal concentrations.
The other thing that stands out in this particular video is the usual X-Y graph theatricals, which exaggerate the Y-scale (the CO2) to achieve the desired drama effect...but at the same time it then reveals that during the summer the CO2 ppm are as low as the winter CO2 ppm`s 20 years earlier.
So how much "back radiation" heat can be trapped during the winter when most of the northern hemisphere has an albedo of better than 0.8...and in the summer when the albedo is lower so is the CO2...at levels it was during a winter 20 years ago...no wonder these "climate models" still get it so wrong.

So your argument is that because the earth isnt completely encapsulated in impregnable smog, global warming isnt real? idiot. The experiment only needs to show THAT this property exists.

"The air is warm because the air is warm"...???...w.th.f is that supposed to mean ?
By the way all the heat that heated the ground came from the sun across a 150 million kilometer vacuum.
Or "The band is the band"...? and "teensy sliver of the band"... "the experiment successfully displayed that heat is being blocked by co2 at that band"

If you only knew just how narrow the band is where CO2 can absorb IR and compared that to water vapor (as in humidity )...but that would presume that You would have a clue about physics,
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact

...so let`s not even go there.
Amazing how stupid the people really are who call others stupid.

Why would I need to compare it to water vapor? Oh dur hur hur, an elephant is bigger than a lion, qed lions dont exist? I keep thinking Im going to get to the bottom of this pit of stupid, but it just keeps going deeper.

 

[westwall]

No dummy, the air is warm because THE AIR IS WARM. FFS. Its not radiating to you from the ground across a vacuum.

You did.

The band is the band, just because you're only looking at the band, or even a teensy sliver of the band doesnt change the fact that the experiment successfully displayed that heat is being blocked by co2 at that band- you're going to tell me its actually absorbing MORE? SUPER! That just makes me more right.

Ummmm you're only partially correct there nimrod. The air is warm because the ground radiates heat that then warms the air. Take away the heat from the ground and the air cools off PDQ.

Yes, when it radiates from the ground some of it is absorbed by the air instead of flying off into space, so when we add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere more of this heat is being absorbed instead of flying off into space. You've failed to contradict me: co2 traps heat.



So your argument is that because the earth isnt completely encapsulated in impregnable smog, global warming isnt real? idiot. The experiment only needs to show THAT this property exists.



Why would I need to compare it to water vapor? Oh dur hur hur, an elephant is bigger than a lion, qed lions dont exist? I keep thinking Im going to get to the bottom of this pit of stupid, but it just keeps going deeper.

Wrong. Water vapor traps heat. CO2 is a miniscule percentage of the atmosphere and it's IR "trapping" to use your term, frequency is the same as water vapor. Thus it CAN'T have any measurable effect because the water vapor allready acts as a GHG in that spectrum and as it constitutes well over 90% of the atmospheric GHG's there is simply no physical way for CO2 to have an effect....none.

But that would be science and you clearly don't do science.