Revamped satellite data shows no pause in global warming

March 4, 2016 by Seth Borenstein
Revamped satellite data shows no pause in global warming
In this May 24, 2015 file photo, a man pours water on his face during a hot summer day in Hyderabad, India. Climate change doubters may have lost one of their key talking points: a particular satellite temperature dataset that had seemed to show no warming for the past 18 years. (AP Photo/Mahesh Kumar A., File)

Climate change doubters may have lost one of their key talking points: a particular satellite temperature dataset that had seemed to show no warming for the past 18 years.

The Remote Sensing System temperature data, promoted by many who reject mainstream climate science and especially most recently by Sen. Ted Cruz, now shows a slight of about 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit since 1998. Ground temperature measurements, which many scientists call more accurate, all show warming in the past 18 years.

"There are people that like to claim there was no warming; they really can't claim that anymore," said Carl Mears, the scientist who runs the Remote Sensing System temperature data tracking.

The change resulted from an adjustment Mears made to fix a nagging discrepancy in the data from 15 satellites.

The satellites are in a polar orbit, so they are supposed to go over the same place at about the same time as they circle from north to south pole. Some of the satellites drift a bit, which changes their afternoon and evening measurements ever so slightly. Some satellites had drift that made temperatures warmer, others cooler. Three satellites had thrusters and they stayed in the proper orbit so they provided guidance for adjustments.

Mears said he was "motivated by fixing these differences between the satellites. If the differences hadn't been there, I wouldn't have done the upgrade."

NASA chief climate scientist Gavin Schmidt and Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M, said experts and studies had shown these problems that Mears adjusted and they both said those adjustments make sense and are well supported in a study in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate.

The study refutes the idea of a pause in global warming, "but frankly common sense and looking at how Earth was responding over the past 18 years kind of makes this finding a 'duh' moment," wrote University of Georgia meteorology professor Marshall Shepherd.

Chip Knappenberger of the Cato Institute, who doesn't doubt that human-caused climate change is happening but does not agree with mainstream scientists who say the problem is enormous, said this shows "how messy the procedures are in putting the satellite data together."

The other major satellite temperature data set, run by University of Alabama Hunstville professor John Christy, shows slight warming after 1998. But if 1998 is included in the data, it sees no warming. But that should change with a warm 2016, Christy said. In fact, Christy used his measurements to determine that February 2016 was 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit above the average for the month—the largest such disparity for any month since records were first kept, in 1979.

As far as what this means for people claiming no warming, scientists don't expect them to change.

"I don't know what Cruz, et al., will do now," Dessler said in an email. "I think it will be increasingly difficult for them to claim that the data show now warming, although it may be possible to say that it shows 'no significant warming.'"

Explore further: New research brings satellite measurements and global climate models closer

Related Stories

The heat goes on: Earth sets 9th straight monthly record

February 17, 2016

The January figures are in, and Earth's string of hottest-months-on-record has now reached nine in a row. But NASA said January stood out: The temperature was above normal by the highest margin of any month on record.

February was warmest month in satellite record

March 3, 2016

By a statistically significant amount, February 2016 was the warmest month in the satellite temperature record, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. ...

Recommended for you

Middle atmosphere in sync with the ocean

July 26, 2016

Water plays a major role for our planet not only in its liquid form at the surface. In the atmosphere too, it considerably affects our lives as well as weather and climate. Clouds and rainfall are one example. Water vapor, ...

199 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

chileastro
2.7 / 5 (38) Mar 04, 2016
Only a complete raving moron could doubt AGW at this point.

And...here they are!

Brought to you by your friendly hypocrites at phys.org
cantdrive85
2.5 / 5 (26) Mar 04, 2016
Revamped satellite data shows no pause in global warming


"Revamped" being the key word....
szore88
1.9 / 5 (28) Mar 04, 2016
Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is 0.039% of the atmosphere- a trace gas. Water vapor varies, but averages around 1%, and is about ten times more effective a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So water vapor is about 25 times more prevalent and ten times more effective; that makes it 250 times more important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide. The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore about 0.004%. The total human contribution to carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%. So human greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.00%, works out to about 0.001%. Since TOTAL greenhouse effect on temperature is estimated at around 63 degrees Fahrenheit, that would come to human-caused warming of about 0.063 degrees Fahrenheit.
We've had global warming for at least 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age. Whatever caused that, it was not human activity.
philstacy9
1.6 / 5 (25) Mar 04, 2016
Clearly the human race is doomed unless all science funding is diverted to global warming research. Time to shut down useless science like the space program, telescopes and atom smashers. All knowledge will be lost when global warming destroys human civilization so there is no point in investigating anything but stopping global warming. Scientists who persist in wasting science funding on anything but global warming research are much worse than deniers they are preventers who are actively blocking efforts to save the human race because they selfishly want to keep their now useless jobs.
indio007
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 04, 2016
Ground measurement is more accurate with their 9.694570e+7 / 1 resolution ?
kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (19) Mar 04, 2016
The same people funding global warming research are also funding WWIII. Welcome to planet psychopath
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (19) Mar 04, 2016
Well, all the lies..er...excuse me "science" from the AGW Cult is certainly cause for PAUSE.
There is evidence that volcanoes and a slightly dimmer Sun have acted to cool the Earth recently and so offset the warming impact of greenhouse gases, according to Schmidt

http://www.report...idt.html
Schmidt pointed out........ "If you take 1998 out, there is no pause"

http://news.natio...ce-ipcc/
Well, they made the MWP disappear, so what's one year.
SamB
2 / 5 (24) Mar 04, 2016
Why not 'Revamp' it once more and then you can show 'accelerated' warming.
rlpederson
2.3 / 5 (28) Mar 04, 2016
Gosh this doesn't look like someone altering their data for a political reason at all. Nope nothing to see here. Move along
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (30) Mar 04, 2016
The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is
@szore88
1- this completely ignores the interactions between CO2 and WVapor
2- see: Lacis et al http://www.scienc...abstract

Radiative forcing, feedback and more above re: CO2 and WV refute your claims using validated evidence

Plus - even Bill Nye shows how CO2 and W Vapor is tied together (in case the study is too technical)
https://youtu.be/3v-w8Cyfoq8

kochevnik
1.4 / 5 (20) Mar 04, 2016
Gosh this doesn't look like someone altering their data for a political reason at all. Nope nothing to see here. Move along
That cannot happen in USA because it is the exceptional nation. Same groups who funded Hitler now funding global warming research but of course there is no connection
tblakely1357
2.2 / 5 (26) Mar 05, 2016
When you fudge the numbers you can 'prove' anything.
syndicate_51
2.1 / 5 (17) Mar 05, 2016
Let the rug sweepin' begin.

Although global warming is real the fact is by doing these 'revamps" they are drawing unwanted suspicions.

It gives people ammo to question the veracity of re-evaluation. Open the source right up for all to see.
szore88
2.1 / 5 (27) Mar 05, 2016
Let the rug sweepin' begin.

Although global warming is real the fact is by doing these 'revamps" they are drawing unwanted suspicions.

It gives people ammo to question the veracity of re-evaluation. Open the source right up for all to see.


We've had global warming for at least 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age. Whatever caused that, it was not human activity.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (17) Mar 05, 2016
This article should go into a museum
orti
2.3 / 5 (28) Mar 05, 2016
Translation: We'll keep fudging 'till we get the answer we want.
BartV
2 / 5 (24) Mar 05, 2016
This article should go into the "fudge" category.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.4 / 5 (29) Mar 05, 2016
So the science denialist deflections sorts into two categories:

- Denying the correlation with all temperature series, up to the point of losing it if it was a debate - by Godwining [!] - which it isn't. One commenter asks for open data, but the data and the calibrations - including this one - has always been.

- Start talking about the mechanism. Good, let us accept the data and move on:

"a trace gas".

But not a trace forcing. It is, now without any modeling necessary but just from data, the only significant forcing behind the AGW. [ http://www.realcl...-charts/ ; note: old charts!]

"We've had global warming for at least 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age. Whatever caused that, it was not human activity."

Actually, seems it was. The first significant change in forcing coincides with global agriculture.

[ http://modernfarm...-change/ ]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (24) Mar 05, 2016
"The first significant change in forcing" after the glaciation period ended.

[The natural forcing behind the glaciations is a huge subject, but we can take it for granted since it goes back 5 Myrs. The interest here is the difference between what we see after the last glaciation and earlier ones. Ruddiman et al's observations goes towards that, see the link.]
greenonions
4.1 / 5 (21) Mar 05, 2016
You are all of course absolutely correct - there is not correlation between C02 and warming - http://www.isws.i...ends.htm
There is no warming - http://ete.cet.ed...herpage/
The temps have been rising for 10,000 years - http://www.zmesci...rs-peak/
Oceans are not rising - http://www3.epa.g...vel.html
Oceans are not warming - http://www3.epa.g...emp.html
Ice sheets are not melting - https://www.skept...-ice.htm and http://nsidc.org/...2013/09/]http://nsidc.org/...2013/09/[/url]
Glaciers are not melting - http://facweb.bhc...ing2.htm (try reading the whole article on this one). and http://nsidc.org/...2013/09/]http://nsidc.org/...2013/09/[/url]
Can we see your data please.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (23) Mar 05, 2016
Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, is 0.039% of the atmosphere- [insert zombie argument. insert another zombie argument.. Remark on 55 year old data. Insert another zombie argument, Insert remark about ice ages.
The Denialist Manifesto. The only thing missing was the reference to the pause that wasn't.
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (29) Mar 05, 2016
szore88 says
.. global warming for at least 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age
Part but, correct is "Climate Change", as sea/air currents move, so overall warming results in a local cooling Eg Ice/Water dynamic

szore88 says
..caused that, it was not human...
Yes but, til ~150 yrs ago CO2 rose fast & recent
http://woodfortre...esrl-co2

szore88 Complete false claim re CO2 in 1st post enough to claim. No its NOT, ie Ignorance of Infra Red(IR) & Visible Spectra(VS) re energy absorbance
http://www.chem.a...1/sim/gh

szore88 over simplifies, can understand *any* Physics ?
1 O2/N2 VS transparent
2 CO2+greenhouse gas affect IR
3 Earth converts VS to IR

szore88 compares CO2 & O2/N2, is not only WRONG but, fully disingenuous, stupid or politically motivated to LIE, he's had means to learn heat since Feb 2013 but Failed

Physics szore88, or Smart/direct & educated refutation with Evidence please ?
kochevnik
2 / 5 (16) Mar 05, 2016
Global warming casually linked to fluctuations in the Earth's orbit around the sun: Milankovitch cycles. Western media assertions are correlative, at best. Western propaganda should be ignored until their fascism and warmongering cedes
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (18) Mar 05, 2016
"If the facts (data) don't fit the theory, change the facts (data)." Albert Einstein

This is the M.O. of AGWites....
cgsperling
3.8 / 5 (20) Mar 05, 2016
If "Total War Ted" Cruz is on one side of an issue, you KNOW it's the wrong side.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (15) Mar 05, 2016
The Denialist Manifesto. The only thing missing was the reference to the pause that wasn't.

How about references to 66 PEER REVIEWED papers instead.
http://hockeyscht...-26.html

I would say the Chicken Littles are in denial, but that would prove detrimental to their wilful ignorance.
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (19) Mar 05, 2016
We should stop questioning the leadership. Their use of the scientific method is above reproach. When the data does not match what the hypothesis predicts, isn't it obvious that we have measurement errors? When they corrected the ground based measurements, there remained problems with the satellite data, so they corrected it.

These are scientists, for God's sake! The fact that you can't see that the world is dying is your fault. Spend as much time as you can afford flying around distributing the news, because it is cooler at 40,000 feet.

We can win this if we stop being anti-dogmatic about it. ;-)
Caliban
3.6 / 5 (31) Mar 05, 2016
"If the facts (data) don't fit the theory, change the facts (data)." Albert Einstein

This is the M.O. of AGWites....


Ok, nutdriver --let's see that Einstein "quote" by page, paragraph, source and in full context.

Or have you falsely and ignorantly just promulgated another proverbial Urban Myth?

This kind of dishonesty ---aka, lie--- is all too prevalent with you denierside squints.
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (18) Mar 05, 2016
We should stop questioning the leadership. Their use of the scientific method is above reproach. When the data does not match what the hypothesis predicts, isn't it obvious that we have measurement errors? When they corrected the ground based measurements, there remained problems with the satellite data, so they corrected it.

These are scientists, for God's sake! The fact that you can't see that the world is dying is your fault. Spend as much time as you can afford flying around distributing the news, because it is cooler at 40,000 feet.

We can win this if we stop being anti-dogmatic about it. ;-)

The whole data analysis is or should be completely public and transparent (patents pending). I therefore challenge you and your oil buddies to reanalyse the whole shabang and prove the claims in your _every_ single stupid post.
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (18) Mar 05, 2016
This article should go into the "fudge" category.

Although I do not question your authority on the subject of fudging,
find someone competent yet equally delusional to prove your assertion.
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (18) Mar 05, 2016
@cant
"If the facts (data) don't fit the theory, change the facts (data)." Albert Einstein

You mean:
Albert Einstein — 'No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.'
So go ahead, prove him wrong. Ah, but you cant, that's how you got your nick.
HeloMenelo
3.3 / 5 (23) Mar 05, 2016
The same people funding global warming research are also funding WWIII. Welcome to planet psychopath


waterprophet clown antisciencegorilla sockpuppet, your oil baboon empire is funding WWIII, and has been doing so ever since it came into existence many decades ago, my bet is that you would stoop even lower on your next comment, (and the odd's i'm going to win this bet is 100% ) so where's your Dogfart and shoot the potty sock today ? bring them along on the bus ride, i'd like to rub it in for ya... ;)
HeloMenelo
3.2 / 5 (22) Mar 05, 2016
Well, all the lies..er...excuse me "science" from the AGW Cult is certainly cause for PAUSE.


You mean the biggest lies ever told by YOUR oil goons does not exist, let me add a firm and solid refresher... ;)

http://phys.org/n...ate.html
HeloMenelo
3 / 5 (24) Mar 05, 2016
Why not 'Revamp' it once more and then you can show 'accelerated' warming.


antisciencegorilla puppet, revamping the propoganda campaign by big oil have been happening on a daily basis for decades, hence you and your clown socks looking like idiots everytime... ;)
HeloMenelo
2.9 / 5 (21) Mar 05, 2016
When you fudge the numbers you can 'prove' anything.


Aaa you mean the cock..ed brothers ;)

http://phys.org/n...ate.html

HeloMenelo
3 / 5 (20) Mar 05, 2016
"If the facts (data) don't fit the theory, change the facts (data)." Albert Einstein

This is the M.O. of AGWites....


"If the facts (data) don't fit the theory, change the facts (data)." Albert Einstein

This is the M.O. of AGWites....


Ok, nutdriver --let's see that Einstein "quote" by page, paragraph, source and in full context.

Or have you falsely and ignorantly just promulgated another proverbial Urban Myth?

This kind of dishonesty ---aka, lie--- is all too prevalent with you denierside squints.


Well said :D... these clowns sure are making the world smile today... :D
HeloMenelo
3 / 5 (21) Mar 05, 2016
We should stop questioning the leadership. Their use of the scientific method is above reproach. When the data does not match what the hypothesis predicts, isn't it obvious that we have measurement errors? When they corrected the ground based measurements, there remained problems with the satellite data, so they corrected it.

These are scientists, for God's sake! The fact that you can't see that the world is dying is your fault. Spend as much time as you can afford flying around distributing the news, because it is cooler at 40,000 feet.

We can win this if we stop being anti-dogmatic about it. ;-)

The whole data analysis is or should be completely public and transparent (patents pending). I therefore challenge you and your oil buddies to reanalyse the whole shabang and prove the claims in your _every_ single stupid post.


It's like asking a monkey the difference between him and his brother o wait... their oil empire is run by baboons..... :D
HeloMenelo
2.9 / 5 (21) Mar 05, 2016
This article should go into the "fudge" category.

Although I do not question your authority on the subject of fudging,
find someone competent yet equally delusional to prove your assertion.


At the end (as always) they are fudging themselves to the dumbest of dumb and the world is having a ball seeing it....Gotta love these clowns they sure put in relentless passion for being stupid... :D
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (17) Mar 05, 2016
Global warming casually linked to fluctuations in the Earth's orbit around the sun: Milankovitch cycles. Western media assertions are correlative, at best. Western propaganda should be ignored until their fascism and warmongering cedes

Global cooling also linked to Milankovitch cycles. Best ignore the communist apologist until his fairy-tale histrionics fade and colonialism cedes.
freeiam
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 05, 2016
The tone in the article makes it clear that it isn't composed by a (real) scientist.
Pointing out that a major independently measured dataset shows a discrepancy with other datasets is a major part of science, and has nothing to do with denial. Logic dictates that conclusions drawn are invalidated until the discrepancy is explained (which probably leads to other conclusions).
Claiming people pointing this out do not change their conclusions when the facts are known is clearly an unscientific statement that assumes discrepancies in data should be ignored as long as you are right in hindsight; science is more like religion in this way (and that explains the tone of this article perfectly).
About this specific correction of the dataset: the correction doesn't give much confidence, it is clear that measurement and noise are almost indistinguishable and that means measure a little longer. In a few hundred or thousand years it will be a clear pattern and we can take action (if needed).
Physgirl
1.8 / 5 (20) Mar 05, 2016
@Captain Stumpy

Plus - even Bill Nye shows how CO2 and W Vapor is tied together (in case the study is too technical)
https://youtu.be/3v-w8Cyfoq8


This is video experiment is categorically and a propagandist one at that. This video was totally debunked at WUWT http://wattsupwit...eriment/

Your quote above actually shows how gullible you are or how ignorant you are.

Regards
Climate Heretic

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (21) Mar 05, 2016
This video was totally debunked at WUWT
@physgirl
the video is irrelevant, it does, however, help demonstrate the whole issue WRT the above linked STUDY, which is not only validated but continues to be validated by further study

no WUWT has been able to refute that study (and the video is anecdotal anyway - NOT evidence, but simply a demonstration that said poster is refusing to accept science)

so, what you did was concentrate on the video while ignoring the science b/c COGNITIVE BIAS
http://journals.p....0075637

what you should have done was read the study and further validations (as well as references) before commenting
which, BTW, "shows how gullible you are or how ignorant you are"

Regards and i hope that you can look at the evidence for what it is, not what you want to see
thanks
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (22) Mar 05, 2016
@Captain Stumpy

Plus - even Bill Nye shows how CO2 and W Vapor is tied together (in case the study is too technical)
https://youtu.be/3v-w8Cyfoq8

Your quote above actually shows how gullible you are or how ignorant you are.

Regards
Climate Heretic

@PhysGirl
POST SCRIPT:
don't take this the wrong way but... WUWT has the same credibility as any other blog: IOW - none
(this includes youtube, BTW)

it is not scientific, it is subjective and in a lot of cases i've seen, intentionally fraudulent

now, i am not saying that you shouldn't read the site... but you should be reading the studies/science (and not just the select ones mentioned on the site)

overwhelmingly, they point one direction

more importantly, as you should know, there is a difference between "source material" and someone's "interpretations" of said material, which is what WUWT is: a blog using cherry-picked data to support their personal bias

thanks
viko_mx
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 05, 2016
From the biblical prophecies we know that the old Earth wil be destroyed so this hysteria in mass medias about global warming becase of biblical reasons is a bit unnecessary except in the case to be achieved control over the economies of individual countries which is also unnecessary because of this near future course of events.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 05, 2016
Seek..er..excuse me.. REVAMP and ye shall find.
http://woodfortre...15/trend
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (20) Mar 05, 2016
Seek..er..excuse me.. REVAMP and ye shall find.
http://woodfortre...15/trend
still propagating the same lies, antig?
you started this straw-man and intentional lie here: http://phys.org/n...mon.html

screwed up the dates there too - asking for one set then moving the dates thinking i wouldn't actually see it...

LMFAO

g-nite ... sorry for outing you
(not really)
Physgirl
1.8 / 5 (19) Mar 05, 2016
@Captian Stumpy

the video is irrelevant, it does, however, help demonstrate the whole issue WRT the above linked STUDY, which is not only validated but continues to be validated by further study


Hypocrite, you provide a link to the 'Bill Nyes' experiment 'video' then state it's not relevant. I'm not talking about the study. This is one experiment vs another experiment of the same type. The video you linked to was debunked totally.

Its your job if you like to debunk what WUWT has stated.

Regards
Climate Heretic

antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 05, 2016
Since you are incapable of comprehending something as simple as the year 1997, I've fixed the graph for just you. Now find someone with a brain who you trust and let them explain it to you.
http://woodfortre...15/trend
Physgirl
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 05, 2016
@Captain Stumpy

o WUWT has been able to refute that study (and the video is anecdotal anyway - NOT evidence, but simply a demonstration that said poster is refusing to accept science).

This discussion is not about the refutation of the study you linked. Even if the experiment refutes or does not refute does not matter. The Bill Nye video was shown to be a lie by the replication of the experiment done by WUWT

so, what you did was concentrate on the video while ignoring the science b/c COGNITIVE BIAS
http://journals.p....0075637


Seriously!!! That piece of shit S Lewandowsky paper?, anything that comes out of his mouth, should be handled with extreme prejudice or contempt, take your pick. Oh nice try at an ad hominium attack.

Regards
Climate Heretic

Physgirl
1.5 / 5 (17) Mar 05, 2016
@Captain Stumpy

what you should have done was read the study and further validations (as well as references) before commenting
which, BTW, "shows how gullible you are or how ignorant you are"

Regards and i hope that you can look at the evidence for what it is, not what you want to see
thanks.


Verbal diarrhea

Regards
Climate Heretic
Physgirl
1.5 / 5 (16) Mar 05, 2016
@PhysGirl
POST SCRIPT:
don't take this the wrong way but... WUWT has the same credibility as any other blog: IOW - none
(this includes youtube, BTW)


You forgot to add phyorg 'forum / comment' part as well.

Regards
Climate Heretic
Physgirl
1.5 / 5 (16) Mar 05, 2016
@Captain Stumpy

it is not scientific, it is subjective and in a lot of cases i've seen, intentionally fraudulent


Your opinion, and again your Bill Nye Video, it is not scientific, it is subjective and in a lot of cases, intentionally fraudulent.

"now, i am not saying that you shouldn't read the site... but you should be reading the studies/science (and not just the select ones mentioned on the site).

overwhelmingly, they point one direction

more importantly, as you should know, there is a difference between "source material" and someone's "interpretations" of said material, which is what WUWT is: a blog using cherry-picked data to support their personal bias

More of your opinions and in that case are worthless.

Regards
Climate Heretic
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (25) Mar 05, 2016
From the biblical prophecies we know that the old Earth wil be destroyed so this hysteria in mass medias about global warming becase of biblical reasons is a bit unnecessary except in the case to be achieved control over the economies of individual countries which is also unnecessary because of this near future course of events.

Silly rabbit. People have been saying the world has been ending for over 5000 years.
Yet we somehow keep on truckin' even when it does.
imagine that...
viko_mx
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 05, 2016
Most important is what says the Creator. He gave as prophecies and signs that run with supernatural accuracy throughout all human history They serve as our guide in time for confirmation God's words and the fact that the Bible is not the work of the human mind.

The more proud is one person, the less space for love have have in his heart.
Manfred Particleboard
3.5 / 5 (22) Mar 05, 2016
I've tried to wade through WUWT, but being used to the scientific literature with it's passive use of language and an ordered flow to what is being communicated, sites like these are stridently different. Instead of : background, explanation of new concept, how the data was obtained, results and discussion with something about errors and context of what can and can't be concluded from the study. WUWT has the same feel as, say, The Daily Mail. Everything is painted with shock and outrage, emotional words such as 'Alarmist' or pejorative mocking such as hockey 'Schtick' are deeply embedded in just about everything on the site. It is deeply emotional with an agenda that is highly reactive. I can only conclude it exists because of a motivation to oppose a political idea rather than a neutral debate about interpretation of data.
That is why I choose not to give the site any validity as a forum of science or policy.
Phys1
3.8 / 5 (16) Mar 05, 2016
@Physgirl

Climate Heretic

Do you not believe there is a climate?
Caliban
3.4 / 5 (25) Mar 05, 2016
Most important is what says the Creator. He gave as prophecies and signs that run with supernatural accuracy throughout all human history They serve as our guide in time for confirmation God's words and the fact that the Bible is not the work of the human mind.

The more proud is one person, the less space for love have have in his heart.


Lack of belief in your "Creator" --whoever or whatever you believe it to be-- does not correlate with "pride".

But it certainly leaves additional time, space and resources to be mindful of the world around us, our place in it, and our effect upon it.

How do you love me now?

Phys1
4.1 / 5 (18) Mar 05, 2016
@viko_mx
Bible is not the work of the human mind

Strange. To me it looks exactly like that.
The more proud is one person, the less space for love have have in his heart.

This is true. Apply this idea not only to others but firstly to yourself.
You come over as a particularly dogmatic and loveless character.
Caliban
2.9 / 5 (19) Mar 05, 2016
@Physgirl

Climate Heretic

Do you not believe there is a climate?


Sorry for the accidental downrank, Phys1 --thought Physgirl was responding to its own comment, sorta like dubyadubyaMAROON is so fond of doing.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 05, 2016
I've tried to wade through WUWT........

Ah yes, you suffer from the well known malady, Chicken Littleitis and exhibit it's most prominent symptom, namely, the inability to escape your astonishingly thick ignorance. Sadly, you are beyond cure but can find some relief. Go outside, look up at the sky, close your eyes quickly, lest reality seeps in, and repeat "THE SKY IS FALLING...THE SKY IS FALLING...."
Physgirl
1.8 / 5 (16) Mar 05, 2016
@Phys1

Do you not believe there is a climate?


Such an inane and stupid question to ask. What do you think?

Regards
Climate Heretic
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (24) Mar 05, 2016
Most important is what says the Creator.

Through his "chosen" human mouthpieces...
He gave as prophecies and signs that run with supernatural accuracy throughout all human history

Not. Give an example.
They serve as our guide in time for confirmation God's words

As defined and written by who, again?
and the fact that the Bible is not the work of the human mind.

Well, not a rational one, anyway...

The more proud is one person, the less space for love have have in his heart.

IF -
Pride (as an expression of self love) is in the brain....
and love is in the heart (lower down)...
Why, they're not even competing for the same space...
Platitudes like that -
ahh forget it. You're not listening to anything but yourself, anyway...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (24) Mar 05, 2016
@Phys1

Do you not believe there is a climate?


Such an inane and stupid question to ask. What do you think?

Regards
Climate Heretic

Phys1
Gotta feeling you're not gonna come out on top in this one.
1 - She's female.
2 - She has more letters after her Phys than you do.
3 - she's female.
4 - All of the above.
If you try, I conclude you must not be married...;-)
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (19) Mar 05, 2016
Hypocrite, you provide a link to the 'Bill Nyes' experiment 'video' then state it's not relevant
@physGirl
1- it is anecdote and supports the study. it is irrelevant but helpful for the stupid people to understand (which is why i linked it) becuase it demonstrates one important point from the study
2- alone, it IS irrelevant. THE STUDY is the important part
READ IT
Seriously!!! That piece of shit S Lewandowsky paper?
nope. it is LACIS et al, and it is VALIDATED
Verbal diarrhea
so... wait... you don't even bother to read the paper, throw out the WRONG authors, while not actually considering the content of the paper?
but i am the one who is wrong and a hypocrite?
LMFAO
You forgot to add phyorg 'forum / comment' part as well
you can deny the post, but you can't deny THE SCIENCE IN THE STUDY

take it or leave it, that is YOUR choice

Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (19) Mar 05, 2016
Your opinion, and again your Bill Nye Video, it is not scientific, it is subjective and in a lot of cases, intentionally fraudulent
@physGirl
feel free to demonstrate where i've been fraudulent, by all means...and i don't care what one does with my opinion, however, the science is a different matter, and you've not been able to refute said paper (heck, you didn't even READ it!)
More of your opinions and in that case are worthless
take that as you wish. i don't care...i was actually trying to give you some good advice and help
you can follow WUWT and believe whatever you wish (i got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, too)
however, if you love science, consider it a warning
CHECK YOUR FACTS AND ONLY ACCEPT SOURCE MATERIAL

i only care about the science and what can be proven
...but it seems that you are a mite wound up about this... you have stock in WUWT?

@WHYDE
i like living dangerously
LMFAO
Manfred Particleboard
3.1 / 5 (23) Mar 05, 2016
You really love this chicken little allegory, while most of us can accept that it's not just the data that is pointing to a disturbing trend, we see rates of change and magnitude of effects in the environment at a global scale that are undeniable. You post highly emotive responses that align with the attitudes of a site you heavily promote on here. Everything's fine business as usual let's just keep doing what we always do; then respond with mocking disdain and hostility towards those who disagree with your world view.
Who are the ants and who is the grasshopper?
HocusLocus
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2016
waterprophet clown antisciencegorilla sockpuppet, your oil baboon empire is funding WWIII, and has been doing so ever since it came into existence many decades ago, my bet is that you would stoop even lower on your next comment, (and the odd's i'm going to win this bet is 100% ) so where's your Dogfart and shoot the potty sock today ? bring them along on the bus ride, i'd like to rub it in for ya... ;)

Where can I learn to talk like this? This seems like really advanced, like college and stuff. You couldn't just pick it up from a book either, there has to be some kind of lab. The potty sock part sounds interesting, I'll bet there are whole chapters on it. I tried to be clever but all I came up with is that poodle, piddle and puddle sound the same and you can have lots of fun with them! But it's hard to denigrate people with stuff like that, I want to learn potty talk. The part about the bus is confusing. Do you mean, there is no potty on the bus?
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (20) Mar 06, 2016
Physgirl claims re Captain Stumpy
Your quote above actually shows how gullible you are or how ignorant you are
Key issue Experimental Design Methodology (EDM)

Unfortunate fact Captain Stumpy, I & others have to deal with odd cranks that can't think squarely on never refuted Physics
1 https://en.wikipe...transfer
leads to
2 https://en.wikipe..._forcing
Means easy resort to a simplified vid

Your reply betrays, despite joining Aug 2011, you haven't bothered to learn key essential Physics beneath the; rhetoric, confirmational bias, propaganda & show up an immensely narrow prejudice

Your nick is "Physgirl" ! what delicious irony :P

Video representative only, intended for those with low attention span trying to cover 1&2 but, within small space & should be considered in that context only

Full EDM requires long (~1+Km) tube, ie expensive/slow

Please read 1&2 & my earlier post & offer smart dialectic re 'some' Physics ?
Physgirl
1.8 / 5 (16) Mar 06, 2016
@Captain Stumpy

@physGirl

1- it is anecdote and supports the study. it is irrelevant but helpful for the stupid people to understand (which is why i linked it) because it demonstrates one important point from the study


No it does not support the study, period and is totally relevant. Lets make it abundantly clear, in your comment you said and I quote:

Plus - even Bill Nye shows how CO2 and W Vapor is tied together (in case the study is too technical)
https://youtu.be/3v-w8Cyfoq8


The experiment was totally debunked and done so in two parts:

a) http://wattsupwit...eriment/
b) http://wattsupwit...eriment/

Cont...

Regards
Climate Heretic
unrealone1
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 06, 2016
http://www.climat...n-paris/
No global warming at all for 18 years 9 months – a new record

Physgirl
1.5 / 5 (16) Mar 06, 2016
@Captain Stumpy

Cont...

You failed to present the two sides of the argument and thereby doing a disservice to those who are ignorant about the subject. Again prove that the two WUWT articles are wrong.

Regards
Climate Heretic
unrealone1
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2016
@Physgirl A sealed bottle in a car park or a car in a hot car park represents the Earths atmosphere??
The Troposphere, Earths first layer of atmosphere at about 10km up is around minus 50.
The Earths poles are about minus 30.
The thermodynamic laws of convection in this sealed bottle in a hot car park are?
And what are the levels of gas in this bottle 10 000 CO2?

antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 06, 2016
it's not just the data that is pointing to a disturbing trend

Yes absolutely, but what you are wilfully ignorant of, is that the disturbing trend is to take data that proves exactly the opposite and revamp it to support the AGW dogma.
HeloMenelo
3.2 / 5 (20) Mar 06, 2016
Seek..er..excuse me.. REVAMP and ye shall find.
http://woodfortre...15/trend

screwed up the dates there too - asking for one set then moving the dates thinking i wouldn't actually see it...

LMFAO

g-nite ... sorry for outing you
(not really)


Ooooohh... that banana sure fell hard on his head today, Baboon fever is big this morning, comments from antisciencegorilla keep getting dumber just as i predicted.
You can take the gorilla out of the bush, but you can't take the bush out of the gorilla.
HeloMenelo
3.2 / 5 (20) Mar 06, 2016
I've tried to wade through WUWT........

Ah yes, you suffer from the well known malady, Chicken Littleitis and exhibit it's most prominent symptom, namely, the inability to escape your astonishingly thick ignorance. Sadly, you are beyond cure but can find some relief. Go outside, look up at the sky, close your eyes quickly, lest reality seeps in, and repeat "THE SKY IS FALLING...THE SKY IS FALLING...."


Sounds like we're hearing some more baboon grunts...lol.. here monkey monkey.....
HeloMenelo
3.1 / 5 (21) Mar 06, 2016
Hypocrite, you provide a link to the 'Bill Nyes' experiment 'video' then state it's not relevant @physGirl
1- it is anecdote and supports the study. it is irrelevant but helpful for the stupid people to understand (which is why i linked it) becuase it demonstrates one important point from the study
2- alone, it IS irrelevant. THE STUDY is the important part
READ IT Seriously!!! That piece of shit S Lewandowsky paper? nope. it is LACIS et al, and it is VALIDATED Verbal diarrhea so... wait... you don't even bother to read the paper, throw out the WRONG authors, while not actually considering the content of the paper?
but i am the one who is wrong and a hypocrite?
LMFAO .....


Aaa another waterprophet, antisciencegorilla puppet, 1 out of 5 is a good start... lots of catching up to to do though, your other socks have years and years of dumb replies and 1 out of 5 ratings ;)
HeloMenelo
3.1 / 5 (21) Mar 06, 2016
it's not just the data that is pointing to a disturbing trend

Yes absolutely, but what you are wilfully ignorant of, is that the disturbing trend is to take data that proves exactly the opposite and revamp it to support the AGW dogma.


Nope the scientists here supports the very Truth as always whilst antisciencegorilla himself ignores every conceivable piece of scientific evidence, and providing hot air supporting his claims throughout the years to support his baboon oil empire stance.. i love this show today, can you you bring 'ol dogfart on the bus and where's little 'ol donglish, we'd love to poke some more fun at your other socks... ;)
Manfred Particleboard
2.8 / 5 (22) Mar 06, 2016
Yes absolutely, but what you are wilfully ignorant of, is that the disturbing trend is to take data that proves exactly the opposite and revamp it to support the AGW dogma.
Talk about twisted logic, here's the difference between how the "dogma" works
"Another alarmist pillar collapses – Greenland melting due to old soot feedback loops and albedo change – not AGW" WUWT
"Greenland's ice is getting darker, increasing risk of melting" Here at phys.org
They report the same information, but one has a conclusion in the title. Why is that?
One uses a passive language the other, well... not so much.
If you are interested in the progression of the research around climate science and can interpret the data for yourself, read a magazine/blog with neutral language and editing. If you are an angry finger waving curmudgeon, read WUWT for a good dose of conformation bias.
Manfred Particleboard
3 / 5 (20) Mar 06, 2016
Even the title is just bad in terms of language use, the report explains that darkening from soot and dust absorb more energy and melt snow faster, how it does this is through certain mechanisms of feedback loops and the consequences of changed albedo conditions. Why the mechanisms are connected to the cause in a headline, as though there needed to be a list, to make it sound more impressive than simply saying 'Greenland melting due to darkening of snow' is intriguing? And critically the headline says '-and not AGW.'
WUWT attitude: HAH not CO2! see not AGW, dusts hands and smugly walks off to the next topic. Critical thinker: But the soot is likely to come from everything from land clearing, forward feedback from increased aridity leading to more aerosols, industry, as well as the odd volcano. Leading to less ice and more absorbed solar energy. That is to say, a contributing factor to global warming. Still predominately caused by human activity, so yes, it can very well be AGW.
Physgirl
1.5 / 5 (16) Mar 06, 2016
@Captain Stumpy

You said:

so, what you did was concentrate on the video while ignoring the science b/c COGNITIVE BIAS http://journals.p....0075637


I said

Seriously!!! That piece of shit S Lewandowsky paper?


So I suggest that you read the replies carefully.

nope. it is LACIS et al, and it is VALIDATED


Validated? Says you.

so... wait... you don't even bother to read the paper, throw out the WRONG authors, while not actually considering the content of the paper?
but i am the one who is wrong and a hypocrite?


You do not know what I have a read and what I have not. Wrong authors? see above. The content of the Lacis et al, is irrelevant at this stage. This DISCUSSION is about the two experiments. You are wrong and a Hypocrite, so the answer is yes to that question. Read my previous replies to find out the reasons.

Regards
Climate Heretic
Physgirl
1.6 / 5 (15) Mar 06, 2016
@Captain Stumpy

feel free to demonstrate where i've been fraudulent, by all means...and i don't care what one does with my opinion, however, the science is a different matter, and you've not been able to refute said paper (heck, you didn't even READ it!)


Obviously you can not read correctly, in terms of the fraudulent, I was referring to the Bill Nye video. Yes, the science does matter and in this particular discussion replication stands as one of the 'concrete pillars' and the Bill Nye video was totally debunked by the replication of the experiment done by WUWT. Finally, again you do not know what I have read.

Regards
Climate Heretic
bluehigh
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 06, 2016
" Some things are too hot to touch
The human mind can only stand so much
You can't win with a losing hand

Feel like falling in love with the first woman I meet
Putting her in a wheelbarrow and wheeling her down the street.

People are crazy and times are strange
I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range
I used to care, but things have changed "

- Bob Dylan. Things have changed.

> Roosters 0 v Rabbitohs 32. 15 minutes remain.

> Climate changes. A great challenge for the most amazing known species in the universe.

> Ads over, back to the footy.
Physgirl
1.7 / 5 (17) Mar 06, 2016
@Captain Stumpy

take that as you wish. i don't care...i was actually trying to give you some good advice and help
you can follow WUWT and believe whatever you wish.

Currently you have not given me any good advice. In addition whatever blog I read I will take the information at face value. Until the information and data has been validated, verified and replicated. You are right I can believe whatever I want, but when it comes to science, believe does not form part of it.
(i got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, too)

If that bridge is the one I think it is, then yes I will buy it.
however, if you love science, consider it a warning
CHECK YOUR FACTS AND ONLY ACCEPT SOURCE MATERIAL

Yes I love science and I will only accept the data and nothing but the data.
i only care about the science and what can be proven

Me too.

Regards
Climate Heretic
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (21) Mar 06, 2016
unrealone1 claims
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/04/no-global-warming-at-all-for-18-years-9-months-a-new-record-the-pause-lengthens-again-just-in-time-for-un-summit-in-paris/
No global warming at all for 18 years 9 months...
Not according to the organisation that collects it & that takes responsibility:-
http://images.rem...ies.html

Do you understand significance of the layers & why the outer are cooling confirming greater heat retention at lower altitudes ?

Note: Warning by RSS re those that cherry pick arbitrarily choosing points
ie Last sentence of 1st para on this link
http://www.remss....eratures

Given water covers ~70% of the Earth's surface its clearly far more important to assess Ocean temperature, its known from comparative specific heat oceans have ~4000 Times the heat capacity of atmosphere ie Huge !

ie A 0.01 C rise in ocean temp represents ~40 C rise in air for same heat ie Huge !
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (21) Mar 06, 2016
unrealone1
..A sealed bottle in a car park or a car in a hot car park represents the Earths atmosphere??
The Troposphere, Earths first layer of atmosphere at about 10km up is around minus 50.
The Earths poles are about minus 30.
The thermodynamic laws of convection in this sealed bottle in a hot car park are?
And what are the levels of gas in this bottle 10 000 CO2?
Please see my posts & consider audience bulk have

1 Short attention span
2 Negligible Physics education
3 Emotionally more receptive than intellect
4 Pliant to (emotional) propaganda/prejudice

Facile experiments re CO2 in bottles don't impress me either but, there's no mechanism by which CO2 properties *must* change from bottle to air, math is proportional

Bottle's light path length (LPL) is very short, to demonstrate effect takes high CO2 level, straightforward proportionality Math

Atmosphere has a long LPL whilst CO2 level much smaller than bottle, ie proportionality Math

& Physics :P
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 06, 2016
@Phys1

Do you not believe there is a climate?


Such an inane and stupid question to ask. What do you think?

Regards
Climate Heretic

Since when are questions "inane and stupid"?
Usually such a reaction serves to hide weak arguments.
Anyway, I asked the question first. Do you disagree with "climate"?
Are your victimised because of this or are you perhaps wrong?
Express yourself, poor thing.
Phys1
2 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2016
double deleted
bluehigh
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 06, 2016
There's something very wrong with you Mike.

Again I ask, do you really talk to people with that wierd verbiage?

Perhaps you are a defective chat bot experiment.

Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (20) Mar 06, 2016
bluehigh claims
There's something very wrong with you Mike
Really?
Such comment from mind of those not fortunate to have multiple university qualifications, wherewithall to trade A$1.5M/month ea month day trading Aust stock exchange, developing electronic products & exploring health matters Eg long term nootropics, you are probably pertinent - what do you do by way of example ?

bluehigh asks with claim
Again I ask, do you really talk to people with that wierd verbiage?
Spell checker off ? What sentence you find the most "weird" then, able to clarify please ?

bluehigh ponders
Perhaps you are a defective chat bot experiment
No. Though I do explore a keyword incidence histogram script re comment behavior here which betray many psychoses in patterns as part of a dynamic profile risk assessment index - many reasons for such development; couple commercial, personal & tangential to determining proclivity to Alzheimers & alerts on related cognitive issues.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (12) Mar 06, 2016
Impossible to measure, predict Climate with 50 years of "Weather" data.
Measuring "Weather" data in a city of 5 Million people and there heat island and comparing it to the same city 100 years ago? where is the "relativity" in this?, there is none!!
All record heat temps are in large city's and airports.
The heat island effect has never been mentioned in any record heat in any large city.
Would this be deception or just stupidity?
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (16) Mar 06, 2016
@unrealone1
Who are you "quoting" ?
And, maybe you should take another look at the climate data.
You don't seem to know the first thing about it.
Caliban
3.3 / 5 (23) Mar 06, 2016
" In addition whatever blog I read I will take the information at face value."


That may very well be the source of your difficulty, Physgirl --I mean Climate Heretic.

Or do I mean PhysHeretic, Climategrrrl...???

How can you even hope to be taken seriously in your claim to have a clear understanding of a complex process like climate change, when you can't even decide what nick you wish to be known by?

Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (22) Mar 06, 2016
unrealone1 (U1) says
Impossible to measure, predict Climate with 50 years of "Weather" data
No, sophisticated math re signal vs noise probabilistic assessment, Eg integration, Fourier & types of Periodicity calcs, ie smart

U1 says
Measuring "Weather" data in a city of 5 Million people and there heat island and comparing it to the same city 100 years ago? where is the "relativity" in this?, there is none!!
To a degree (pun) yes, therefore multitude measures integrated over large areas & re quiescent & variance

U1 claims
All record heat temps are in large city's and airports
Not necessarily,anyway subject to variance/periodicity analysis

U1 says
..heat island effect has never been mentioned in any record heat in any large city
Look more closely then, ie Google Scholar, get on physicsforums here be polite & questioning no blurts of idle claims

U1 asks
...deception or just stupidity?
Neither, Needs measurement methods/Physics education...
bluehigh
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 06, 2016
Mike,

Do you leap tall buildings in a single bound?

Faster than a speeding bullet?

More powerful than a locomotive?

------

Is it a demented fool? Is it a Buffoon?

No ... It's the Super Dickhead Mike!
unrealone1
1.6 / 5 (13) Mar 06, 2016
The record for the longest heat wave in the world is generally accepted to have been set in Marble Bar in Australia, where from October 31, 1923 to April 7, 1924 the temperature broke the 37.8 °C (100.0 °F) benchmark, setting the heat wave record at 160 days.
No man made heat island no heating!! looks like cooling to me..

http://www.bom.go...month=13
Phys1
4.4 / 5 (14) Mar 06, 2016
@u1
Fine example of the anecdotal logical fallacy. In fact it is better than the example given here:
https://en.wikipe...ividness
What is your conclusion given the list of weather records on
https://en.wikipe..._records ?
Eddy Courant
2 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2016
The Brooklyn Bridge is on eBay again!
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (16) Mar 06, 2016
No it does not support the study
@Physgirl
then you obviously didn't read the study as you have no idea what i am referring to, so further discussion would be like teaching a frog to read/speak chinese
The experiment was totally debunked
like i said, the experiment was an analogy to supoprt the study, it was not intended to be anything other as i've noted in the past youtube is NOT a scientific reference
You failed to present the two sides of the argument
and it is not needed b/c:
1- WUWT claims are refuted by the SCIENCE
2- WUWT is OPINION on science, nothing more
3- most importantly, the onus of proof is on WUWT to refute the science, which is my position

and because their abject failure to do so with evidence equivalent to the science they argue against, that is evidence enough to undermine the whole site and prove it is OPINION

WUWT is not source material NOR is it scientific evidence
it is political/religious dogma
PERIOD
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (16) Mar 06, 2016
@pgirl cont'd
read the replies carefully
Ok, this was my fault, and i apologise. I did missread that quote
HOWEVER, i would also like to note that your actions actually validate that study in that you have intentionally ignored empirical evidence for the sake of dogma
Validated? Says you
says science
By all means, show me where Lacis et al and the later studies were: retracted, deleted, removed, refuted, adjusted or anything else - when you can do that, you can claim the study isn't validated
You do not know what I have a read and what I have not
actually, i can: you've made claims about the study (Lacis) as well as the video (and the analogy) that are demonstrative of someone who is unaware of the contents of the study, therefore i can extrapolate from that, especially given your argument that Lacis isn't validated (quoted)

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (16) Mar 06, 2016
@pgirl cont'd
The content of the Lacis et al, is irrelevant at this stage
1- it was the SCIENCE that was linked to prove a point
2- this is a science site, therefore it is the only thing that IS relevant
This DISCUSSION is about the two experiments
no, it isn't. as i stated, the youtube (analogy - NOT scientific evidence) was used as a demonstration of a specific point which is made in the STUDY, which has been validated
your argument about it's relevance would be similar to you arguing about a JOKE i made that tied evidence together and made the subject more clear: it isn't about the JOKE... it's about the EVIDENCE
you can argue all you want about the joke/analogy/video because it is NOT THE POINT

the POINT is in the STUDY, which is why i linked it,
and that point is one you can't refute, which is WHY YOU ARE CONCENTRATING ON THE VIDEO

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (16) Mar 06, 2016
@pgirl cont'd
in terms of the fraudulent, I was referring to the Bill Nye video
then why aren't you arguing about the recent Monty Python video i linked as well?
in science, it is sometimes a good thing to be able to use a joke or NON-scientific evidence to point out something - oh, and something i noticed: WUWT did NOT replicate the demonstration (it was NOT an experiment as there were not a lot of controls etc) exactly, as a true scientist would, and their claims about photoshop are simply claims, NOT validation of anything
more to the point: NEITHER VIDEO ARE PEER REVIEWED CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS, they are demonstrations!
NEITHER are equivalent to the STUDY I LINKED

but that doesn't seem to matter to you

but then again, so long as someone MAKES A CLAIM that supports your own beliefs, it is OK to accept it as truth, is that right?

therefore you again validate the "lewandoqski" study you hated above

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (17) Mar 06, 2016
@pgirl cont'd
Finally, again you do not know what I have read
i can demonstrate either that you have NOT read the study OR you are intentionally ignoring the scientific evidence in the study (or didn't understand it) which is the same thing as not reading it
if you want to claim dogma or lack of comprehension, feel free to
Currently you have not given me any good advice
stick to the empirical evidence and follow the science isn't good advice?
are you kidding me or are you intentionally trying to be a troll?
In addition whatever blog I read I will take the information at face value
BLOG is someone elses OPINION about something - if you don't actually authenticate the references and validate the claims, then you are simply guilty of dogmatic acceptance of a BELIEF, not of following science or actually knowing the truth about anything
when it comes to science, believe does not form part of it
this is NOT what you are demonstrating
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (19) Mar 06, 2016
@pgirl cont'd
If that bridge is the one I think it is, then yes I will buy it
LOL
nice to see you can loosen up!

so why would you assume the analogy/demo is anything other than what i stated when it is obvious you can differentiate humour from science?
Yes I love science and I will only accept the data and nothing but the data
and this is MY POINT above!

you are focused on the video (don't)

the science makes a profound and specific set of provable statements that are supported not only by evidence but by validated further studies (replication), and that information directly contradicts what WUWT is portraying (not just the study i linked, but the BULK of the science)

Why would you accept someone else opinion when it directly contradicts the science?
because it uses big words? So does SkepticalScience. why take the evidence of one blog over another?

I'M CONFUSED ABOUT THAT WRT YOU!
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (20) Mar 06, 2016
@u1
Fine example of the anecdotal logical fallacy. In fact it is better than the example given here:
https://en.wikipe...ividness ?

Misleading vividness....
Wow...
I LOVE it...:-)
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (21) Mar 06, 2016
And, Cap'n. You are such a shameless flirt..:-)
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (18) Mar 06, 2016
And, Cap'n. You are such a shameless flirt..:-)
its a Firefighter thing...
you get used to people throwing themselves at you saying "save me" ...

.

Misleading vividness....
Wow...
and thanks for linking that P1 post... i missed it when i was reading pgirl...
gkam
1.2 / 5 (20) Mar 06, 2016
"its a Firefighter thing...you get used to people throwing themselves at you saying "save me"
------------------------------
Prove to us you were a "firefighter". Show us you and your Big Truck.

You call the rest of liars, so now, you can show us you are real.

FritzVonDago
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 06, 2016
Whats the old saying: "Like people when they are tortured, numbers will tell you anything to stop the torment. This article is more government grant money chasing climate change HOGWASH!
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (14) Mar 06, 2016
Hey - unrealone1 - if you go to your own link http://www.bom.go...month=13 and look on the left hand side of the page - you will see a number of links. Click on the one that says Climate Change - and it takes you to this page - http://www.bom.go...meseries Looks like warming to me.
Captain Stumpy
3.8 / 5 (16) Mar 06, 2016
Prove to us you were a "firefighter". Show us you and your Big Truck.
You call the rest of liars, so now, you can show us you are real
@LIAR-kam
you do realise that i sent you a picture of me with my truck already, right?
LMFAO

maybe you should check your glasses and up those meds!

better yet, I WILL add my pic to the file i linked of your stupid crap-o-la!

http://s1027.phot...p;page=1

Pw= VALIDATE

ROTFLMFAO

dont mind the small size, scanner take of a 35mm pic with lo-res
(and adapted specially for Uber commando engineer stalker GROUPIE above, of course)
Phys1
4.7 / 5 (13) Mar 06, 2016
Whats the old saying: "Like people when they are tortured, numbers will tell you anything to stop the torment. This article is more government grant money chasing climate change HOGWASH!

You disagree because you are jealous of their grants.
That is not very convincing.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (21) Mar 06, 2016
Prove to us you were a "firefighter". Show us you and your Big Truck.

You call the rest of liars, so now, you can show us you are real.

I wish women would say that to me when I tell 'em I was once a porn star....
Estevan57
4.5 / 5 (17) Mar 06, 2016
"Prove to us you were a "firefighter". Show us you and your Big Truck.


Gkam, are you flirting with Stumpy? You 'frisco fellas...
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (14) Mar 06, 2016
"Prove to us you were a "firefighter". Show us you and your Big Truck.


Gkam, are you flirting with Stumpy? You 'frisco fellas...

paddle faster, i hear BANJO music!

Squeeeeeeel!
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (19) Mar 06, 2016
greenonions offered
.. unrealone1 - if you go to your own link http://www.bom.go...month=13 Looks like warming....
Great find greenonions, forgot about them, use for local weather in Perth, Western Australia, they also new HQ satellite feed chinese or japanese, high res for rain/cloud definition, temperature etc Sections of the real-time feed on Aust abc 24 news channel time lapsed

unrealone1 doesnt know re Marble Bar, which I drove through 2008 with my boys (my old beast @ Trigg Beach back then http://niche.ii.n...each.jpg ) is landlocked, far from sea thus its temps are not moderated by huge ocean specific heat !
https://en.wikipe...capacity

@Captain Stumpy why links that need Pw & popups/low B/W ?
Suggest wsftp lite, quick easy transfers to/from your own ISP area, no res issues, efficient, no popups, fast B/W, set privileges, Eg my car pic
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (13) Mar 06, 2016
@Captain Stumpy why links that need Pw
@Mike
i don't know what you mean by most of the rest, but i will explain the Photobucket password

i knew the idiot would send stuff with his personal information on it even though i told him to not only redact said info, but i also warned him ahead of time that i would post everything he sent for others to validate and keep me honest

considering his paranoia and stupidity, i chose to use a PW protected folder (it's not BOT searched/used by imaging search engines)

this way someone MUST have the PW to access the file, therefore they must also be aware of the conversation, so it limits the exposure

legally, i didn't have to make that much effort, as he accepted the conditions when he sent said contents AND i've already warned him to always redact personal info

I can prove this by public and private posts/e-mail
so i don't worry about his threats (plus, state laws protect me)

i don't see pop-ups... i use a HOST file etc
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 07, 2016
Captain Stumpy (CS)
... you mean by most of the rest
Data overhead = bandwidth (B/W) & cookies, point is you set your own privileges such as Pw & add index.html to get IPs & other "useful" system specific stats (SSS) re viewing PC :-)

CS ugh
knew the idiot would send stuff with his personal information..
Can we stop with idle name calling please ?

Personal doesn't have to be low IQ, depends whats in place and/or if they care, seen that used subtlety in smart way to flush out bullies & create traps to make $ :P

CS :-(
... his paranoia and stupidity
Then don't sustain bullying pattern, consider he's >70 & many nasty things said started by Otto, You/Ira follow prejudice :-(

Agree all stop name calling ?

CS
this way someone MUST have the PW to access the file, therefore they must also be aware of the conversation
BUT, PUBLIC, robots smart, sry your logic fails multiply

Can see file SSS, send:- niche 'nak" ii "ack' net
nak isa at
ack isa dot
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (16) Mar 07, 2016
@Captain Stumpy
Not sure if you read my earlier post addressing Uncle Ira's proven tangential "pattern" but, I'm here for many reasons, one is developing a script to track usage/interaction for $ & as a sideline adds stat analysis from simple keywords present/missing, through to "interesting" things like timings of nebulous correlations & re variance gaps applies; here, http://quora.com & http://newzulu.com.au/

Suffice to say (can email more), my script shows probability P=0.9 (max=1) that Physgirl is either ubavontuba or both under control of same individual (less likely as a group). Script also suggests other nicks under same focus

Likely Physgirl has me on ignore as fails to address my points thus, suggest if you want to make definitive headway, converge on core items which are (so far) irrefutable re core Physics which Physgirl sidesteps engaing in tit4tat & in pattern same (with a couple of deletions which actually increase probability) as ubavontuba
gkam
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 07, 2016
Stumpy posted my SSN. I will have him.
philstacy9
1.3 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2016

NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years

http://realclimat...8-years/
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2016
@MikeM
CS ugh
Hey! aint had coffee, and that was just before i went to bed-LOL
Can we stop with idle name calling
it isn't idle nor inaccurate
was told to redact personal info
was told anything he sent would be public access w/password on PBucket
sent it anyway
now complains because i kept my word?
idiot is a very descriptive word that shows my restraint, because there are far better words that are worse
Then don't sustain bullying pattern
so now it is bullying to want someone to validate a claim? WTF mike?? so now you want to promote hypocrisy?
You/Ira follow prejudice
getting tired of your hypocrisy on this one - if you want to defend liar-kam, FINE
but in no way will i decide to give special privileges to him because you got conned or feel empathy
robots smart, sry your logic fails multiply
BOTS don't collect from the folder, you can see that by taking a PIC and searching google/other engines

LEARN TO INTERNET, mike
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2016
Suffice to say (can email more), my script shows probability P=0.9 (max=1) that Physgirl is either ubavontuba or both under control of same individual (less likely as a group). Script also suggests other nicks under same focus
@Mike
Would LOVE to see more!
I do everything more Old-school ... out of habit
it would be far easier to do it with a program...

what is the accuracy of comparisons?
are you using keywords and phrases too?
spelling and syntax comparisons?

that is actually really cool, Mike! do you have a program built for distribution or is it just something you have on your own PC?

I was thinking of building something similar as a BOT in Python to track the PO site and certain other sites... reading up on Python now (got python because of a project a friend has)
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2016
Stumpy posted my SSN. I will have him.
@liar-beni-kam
feel free to continue threatening me here and on e-mail... you have NO legal recourse nor will you be able to win a court case

if you actually talked to a lawyer you would know that already

PS- you've not threatened me this morning... you sick? medic-alert fail and you can't reach your laptop?
worried about you, beni-kam... i do know a few good geriatric homes around you, though, if you are interested. they have good restorative programs for your dementia problems. great state records too... but you would have to get checked in yourself
unrealone1
1 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2016
@philstacy9 . Pure gold thanks for link
http://realclimat...8-years/
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (13) Mar 07, 2016
@philstacy9 . Pure gold thanks for link
http://realclimat...8-years/
you do realise that the link is to a BLOG that is just someone's INTERPRETATION of the evidence, right?

if you look at the trend or data just from 1958...

http://www.woodfo...60/trend

if you could actually prove, with evidence equivalent to the studies published, that there has been no warming for 58 years, you would be world famous, and the oil industry/Kohk etc would INSURE you were god-like and a household name
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2016

NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years

http://realclimat...8-years/

Looks like NOAA "revamped" the graphics to show what they wanted to show. Before too long they will likely "revamp" that data to support their lies. Then they'll "revamp" their lies to look truthful. Revamp, revamp, revamp...
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (14) Mar 07, 2016
Stumpy posted my SSN. I will have him.
George kamburoff you little cutie if you were here I would tickle you until you threw up.

Hey - don't forget not to lie to your lawyer about you giving Stumpy permission to post anything you sent him.

Lawyers hate it when you lie to them.
https://youtu.be/z860fRUigqU
kochevnik
5 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2016
Looks like NOAA "revamped" the graphics to show what they wanted to show. Before too long they will likely "revamp" that data to support their lies. Then they'll "revamp" their lies to look truthful. Revamp, revamp, revamp...
Same people who think Hollywood movies need reboots also think science needs revamps to fit their agendas. Rockefellers sold 80% of their energy holdings. Their wealth will probably be reinvested in Frankenfoods and social programs to tax respiration
greenonions
5 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2016
Yep cantdrive it is a huge conspiracy - and all the world's scientists are in on it. They are manipulating the data - just so they will look really really stupid a few years from now. I did enjoy reading your realscience link. Those guys really hate Megan Kelly don't they? Lot's of rehashed - debunked garbage on your blog site - definitely not any real science. I guess you love the echo chamber.
leetennant
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2016
Yep cantdrive it is a huge conspiracy - and all the world's scientists are in on it. They are manipulating the data - just so they will look really really stupid a few years from now. I did enjoy reading your realscience link. Those guys really hate Megan Kelly don't they? Lot's of rehashed - debunked garbage on your blog site - definitely not any real science. I guess you love the echo chamber.


A conspiracy so insidious even the Arctic is in on it.

Did you know that "LIBERALS" invented time travel just so they could travel back 200 years and start acceptance of the bogus science that underpins AGW? And they did it JUST SO OBAMA COULD CHARGE AMERICANS MORE TAX NOW. This manipulation of the time-space continuum is about nationalised healthcare. That's how insidious this conspiracy is.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (11) Mar 09, 2016
A conspiracy so insidious even the Arctic is in on it.

Did you know that "LIBERALS" invented time travel just so they could travel back 200 years and start acceptance of the bogus science that underpins AGW? And they did it JUST SO OBAMA COULD CHARGE AMERICANS MORE TAX NOW. This manipulation of the time-space continuum is about nationalised healthcare. That's how insidious this conspiracy is.

wow... that explains a lot!

obviously you got this first hand from the NSA and area 51... the ONLY places a worldwide conspiracy could happen without everyone knowing about it
daqman
5 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2016
"I don't know what Cruz, et al., will do now,"

I don't usually comment on such articles because I can't stand how the deniers seem to dominate the comments with insults. I think that I know exactly what Cruz et al will do. They will claim that this valid adjustment is a politically motivated manipulation of the data to make it fit an agenda. This is exactly what is happening with the "investigation" (witch hunt) of NOAA by Rep. Lamar Smith.
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2016
daqman,
I don't usually comment on such articles because I can't stand how the deniers seem to dominate the comments with insults.


You have that wrong. The insults predominately originate from the AGWites.

They will claim that this valid adjustment is a politically motivated...


Since it is, yes. The ground based data was adjusted and now the satellite data is being adjusted. When you can adjust the data as needed, you can claim anything -- and for the climate, that is just what happens.
rodkeh
1 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2016
In 1856 Eunice Foote proved that CO2 absorbs solar radiation, which means that CO2 blocks solar radiation from reaching the ground and acts as an inside-out greenhouse and actually increases the flux of outward radiation.

The exact opposite of what the contemporary greenhouse theory says.

Ergo, solar energy has nothing to do with climate, its jurisdiction is weather and nurturing and fostering life, NOT climate.
leetennant
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2016
Wow, you mean Eunice Foote proved something that has physically been demonstrated to not be true? That's amazing.

NOTE: Eunice Foote actually demonstrated the enhanced absorption of radiation by CO2, which is prerequisite to the greenhouse effect and naturally results in the conclusion that CO2 will resulting in *warming*. So you have it quite literally backwards. She was never published because women weren't but since her work precedes Tyndall's some people believe she should be credited as the first climate scientist instead.
leetennant
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2016
And if you're as interested as I am in the deliberate and systematic removal of women from scientific history, you might find this of interest

http://www.search...nson.pdf

I did.
rodkeh
1 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2016
First you say,

Wow, you mean Eunice Foote proved something that has physically been demonstrated to not be true? That's amazing.


then you say the exact opposite,

NOTE: Eunice Foote actually demonstrated the enhanced absorption of radiation by CO2,


You can't have it both ways Sunshine!

Make up your mind!
leetennant
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2016
Um... the enhanced absorption of radiation by CO2 is WHY it causes warming...
rodkeh
1 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2016
Um... the enhanced absorption of radiation by CO2 is WHY it causes warming...


which is exactly what Eunice Foote "PROVED"!

But we are not talking about CO2's ability to absorb energy, we are talking about whether or not it absorbs solar energy.
leetennant
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2016
Right, we're not talking about CO2s ability to absorb energy. We're talking about CO2s ability to absorb energy. And while CO2 absorbs energy and this causes warming, it's not causing warming, which is what its ability to absorb energy clearly proves. Because if it absorbed energy, then it would be warming And it does absorb energy so that's why it's not. Warming, I mean.

Thanks, rodkeh. You made my day.
leetennant
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2016
It is possible purists will find that comment overly glib. For that I apologise. But this argument is dumb. Foote's work was one of the first steps to establishing the greenhouse effect and the way in which CO2 causes warming. To say it isn't, is like saying that Newton's work proved that gravity was really not that important overall.
rodkeh
1 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2016
Right, we're not talking about CO2s ability to absorb energy. We're talking about CO2s ability to absorb energy. And while CO2 absorbs energy and this causes warming, it's not causing warming, which is what its ability to absorb energy clearly proves. Because if it absorbed energy, then it would be warming And it does absorb energy so that's why it's not. Warming, I mean.

Thanks, rodkeh. You made my day.


So, are you saying CO2 does or doesn't absorb solar radiation?
rodkeh
1 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2016
It is possible purists will find that comment overly glib. For that I apologise. But this argument is dumb. Foote's work was one of the first steps to establishing the greenhouse effect and the way in which CO2 causes warming. To say it isn't, is like saying that Newton's work proved that gravity was really not that important overall.


Still refusing to admit that CO2 absorbs solar radiation?
SteveS
5 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
Still refusing to admit that CO2 absorbs solar radiation?


The atmosphere absorbs solar radiation.
http://i.stack.imgur.com/yTUFf.png
The remaining energy warms the surface that then re-emits that energy at infra red wavelengths that are absorbed by green house gasses including CO2.

More greenhouse gasses result in higher atmospheric temperatures.

The greenhouse effect exists.

which is exactly what Eunice Foote "PROVED"!
unrealone1
1 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2016
When Donald Trump wins the election, "Suddenly" the 1930's will be hotter than today, thus bringing an end to the Global Warming Madness.
john_mathon
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2016
50+ predictions of failure from climate scientists: http://wp.me/pNj9c-er

gkam
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2016
"In 1856 Eunice Foote proved that CO2 absorbs solar radiation, which means that CO2 blocks solar radiation from reaching the ground and acts as an inside-out greenhouse and actually increases the flux of outward radiation."
---------------------------------

Look up the word "spectrum". The heat comes in as higher-energy shorter wavelength radiation, which heats the objects. It is cooled by the object, and released as long-wave thermal radiation, which is blocked by the CO2.
SteveS
5 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2016
When Donald Trump wins the election, "Suddenly" the 1930's will be hotter than today, thus bringing an end to the Global Warming Madness.


Are you saying that George.W.Bush was in on the conspiracy?
compose
Mar 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
unrealone1
1 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2016
Scientists Stand By NOAA Administrator Who Refuses To Hand Over Emails To Congress
Former NOAA employees voiced their support as well, cautioning that turning over the emails would result in damage to NOAA's ability to conduct research.???
http://www.popsci...s,413002
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2016
When Donald Trump wins the election, "Suddenly" the 1930's will be hotter than today, thus bringing an end to the Global Warming Madness.

What is it US citizens don't get about the "G" in AGW.?
And why so US centred. The US is not the planet.
Just 2% of it.
It's not going to miss you no matter how deep you bury your heads in the sand, or how stupid a President you vote in.
Seriously - You wouldn't quake in having that man's finger on the nuclear trigger?
Now that is scarey.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (1) Mar 10, 2016
Still refusing to admit that CO2 absorbs solar radiation?
The greenhouse effect exists.
Much of the greenhouse effect is due to the enclosure
rodkeh
1 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2016
Still refusing to admit that CO2 absorbs solar radiation?


The atmosphere absorbs solar radiation.
http://i.stack.imgur.com/yTUFf.png
The remaining energy warms the surface that then re-emits that energy at infra red wavelengths that are absorbed by green house gasses including CO2.

More greenhouse gasses result in higher atmospheric temperatures.

The greenhouse effect exists.

which is exactly what Eunice Foote "PROVED"!


You denialists will go to any length to avoid admitting the obvious truth.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2016
What is it US citizens don't get about the "G" in AGW.?
@runrig
easy now... not all of us are that stupid!!
... just the political, religious, financially or other motivated idiots who apparently can't read and understand the science!
LMFAO

Some Americans are scientifically literate! after all, Nye and Tyson keep trying to educate the idiots!
think of it this way:
you can lead a dipsh*t to knowledge, but you can't make them THINK!
LOL
You wouldn't quake in having that man's finger on the nuclear trigger?
Now that is scarey.
Absolutely true... but considering Ronnie had alzheimers during the cold war... LMFAO
meh!
LOL

(joking about the last part... sorta... LOL)
rodkeh
1 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2016
"Look up the word "spectrum". The heat comes in as higher-energy shorter wavelength radiation, which heats the objects. It is cooled by the object, and released as long-wave thermal radiation, which is blocked by the CO2.


Look up the phrase, "solar spectrum". You will find that it encompasses all infrared wavelengths, including that absorbed by CO2, which is exactly what Eunice Foote "PROVED" in 1856!

If the atmospheric CO2 has already absorbed solar radiation, it is already saturated and can not absorb terrestrial radiation. Once the atmosphere is saturated with solar radiation it becomes transparent, in all directions, to all subsequent radiation.

The is no greenhouse effect and solar radiation has nothing to due will climate
SteveS
5 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2016
What is it US citizens don't get about the "G" in AGW.?


There's no nationalistic monopoly in morons

https://en.wikipe...renchley
https://en.wikipe...l_Lawson

We can still compete with the best.

Makes me proud to be British.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
Capt:
"@runrig
easy now... not all of us are that stupid!!"


I stand admonished - and of course you are correct.
But from my POV most seem to come from there
.
With notable exceptions - Monckers FI !

Seriously - we here find Trump totally execrable.

BTW Been inhabiting/shaking the cages of those at WUWT/Climate Etc and Spencer's. (This place is a lot quieter with the deluded now)
Some nice ammunition with RSS v4.0.

PS: Physgirl could be Janice Moore (WUWT denizen). And just a hand-waver.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2016
What is it US citizens don't get about the "G" in AGW.?


There's no nationalistic monopoly in morons

https://en.wikipe...renchley

We can still compete with the best.

Makes me proud to be British.

True of course..... And possibly THE most obnoxious egotistical wanker in the Denialatti crowd.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2016
But from my POV most seem to come from there
@runrig
because most DO come from here, from what i've seen!
it wasn't admonishment - just don't forget there are SOME who arent stupid! LOL
Seriously - we here find Trump totally execrable
i find ALL the candidates execrable!
BTW Been inhabiting/shaking the cages of those at WUWT/Climate Etc and Spencer's
you should be linking some of those arguments/evidence!
any way to get you to e-mail a few to me? TIA
Physgirl could be Janice Moore (WUWT denizen)
I will do some homework... i tend to avoid the stupidity of WUWT... it's bad enough here being threatened daily by wanna-be engineers etc...
LOL
Some nice ammunition with RSS v4.0.
THANKS
SteveS
5 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
The is no greenhouse effect and solar radiation has nothing to due will climate


So why don't we have the same temperature range as the moon?

"During the day the temperature on the Moon can reach 253 Fahrenheit (123 Celsius), while at night it can drop to -387 Fahrenheit (-233 Celsius)"

http://www.moonzo...oonFacts

TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2016
The heat comes in as higher-energy shorter wavelength radiation, which heats the objects. It is cooled by the object, and released as long-wave thermal radiation
George kamburoff - you sure you want to be giving out advice about thermal radiation?

Why, in this thread
http://phys.org/n...ess.html

-you revealed how little you actually know about it. You sure you want to revisit that?

Who am I kidding - you probably do.

"Cleckley's seminal hypothesis concerning the psychopath is that he suffers from a very real mental illness indeed: a profound and incurable affective deficit. If he really feels anything at all, they are emotions of only the shallowest kind. He does bizarre and self-destructive things because consequences that would fill the ordinary man with shame, self-loathing, and embarrassment simply do not affect the psychopath at all. What to others would be a disaster is to him merely a fleeting inconvenience."
Maggnus
5 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2016
First you say,

Wow, you mean Eunice Foote proved something that has physically been demonstrated to not be true? That's amazing.


then you say the exact opposite,

NOTE: Eunice Foote actually demonstrated the enhanced absorption of radiation by CO2,


You can't have it both ways Sunshine!

Make up your mind!

It is a sad day indeed when you read a person's comments and realize that they have no idea what was said to them, and post only to argue.

You should read what leetennant actually said Sunshade. Then look up the big words you don't understand. Then read it again.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
I will do some homework... i tend to avoid the stupidity of WUWT... it's bad enough here being threatened daily by wanna-be engineers etc..
LOL
Some nice ammunition with RSS v4.0.
THANKS


Yes, I know what you mean as it's easy to follow them down the rabbit-hole and of course that's their territory so Mark twain's warning comes into play (never argue with an idiot, as ....) - and you are exposed to the "attack-dogs".
Judith "it's the best data we have" Curry has exposed the obvious (to science followers) in that patently stupid statement with RSS's revision and they have turned on Mears.
Monker's "pause" has instantly gone.
rodkeh
1 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2016
So why don't we have the same temperature range as the moon?


First and foremost because, the moon does not have a molten core, just a few meters below the surface, with temperatures about the same as the surface of the SUN.
rodkeh
1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
It is a sad day indeed when you read a person's comments and realize that they have no idea what was said to them, and post only to argue.


I know exactly what you mean!
Phys1
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2016

Look up the phrase, "solar spectrum". You will find that it encompasses all infrared wavelengths,

The energy that the sun emits in the FIR atmospheric window is incredibly much less that that at higher energies. Therefore your argumentation does not hold. Of course.
Phys1
5 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2016
It is a sad day indeed when you read a person's comments and realize that they have no idea what was said to them, and post only to argue.


I know exactly what you mean!

There is an asymmetry that you have not noticed.
You are the one who has no idea.
The other side of the conversation understands what you are saying, which is why they say it is wrong.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
So why don't we have the same temperature range as the moon?


First and foremost because, the moon does not have a molten core, just a few meters below the surface, with temperatures about the same as the surface of the SUN.

Really ... I mean seriously - fascinating.

http://www.skepti...low.html

Now your science please, as hand-waving doesn't count.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2016
Right, we're not talking about CO2s ability to absorb energy. We're talking about CO2s ability to absorb energy. And while CO2 absorbs energy and this causes warming, it's not causing warming, which is what its ability to absorb energy clearly proves. Because if it absorbed energy, then it would be warming And it does absorb energy so that's why it's not. Warming, I mean.

Thanks, rodkeh. You made my day.

And you just made mine!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (13) Mar 10, 2016
So why don't we have the same temperature range as the moon?


First and foremost because, the moon does not have a molten core, just a few meters below the surface, with temperatures about the same as the surface of the SUN.
Uhmmm
i hate to point out the glaringly obvious but... neither does the earth

for starters, our molten core is a lot more than "a few meters below the surface"
...

of course, i will also say that you should read runrig's comments too

.

rodkeh
1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016

Look up the phrase, "solar spectrum". You will find that it encompasses all infrared wavelengths,

The energy that the sun emits in the FIR atmospheric window is incredibly much less that that at higher energies. Therefore your argumentation does not hold. Of course.

Don't try to change the subject!
rodkeh
1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016
Uhmmm
i hate to point out the glaringly obvious but... neither does the earth

for starters, our molten core is a lot more than "a few meters below the surface"
...

of course, i will also say that you should read runrig's comments too.


runrig's are even more idiotic than yours and the Moon is just a fraction of the size of the Earth, ergo...
Phys1
5 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2016

Look up the phrase, "solar spectrum". You will find that it encompasses all infrared wavelengths,

The energy that the sun emits in the FIR atmospheric window is incredibly much less that that at higher energies. Therefore your argumentation does not hold. Of course.

Don't try to change the subject!

Exactly. I don't!
Protoplasmix
5 / 5 (13) Mar 10, 2016
Right, we're not talking about CO2s ability to absorb energy. We're talking about CO2s ability to absorb energy. And while CO2 absorbs energy and this causes warming, it's not causing warming, which is what its ability to absorb energy clearly proves. Because if it absorbed energy, then it would be warming And it does absorb energy so that's why it's not. Warming, I mean.

Thanks, rodkeh. You made my day.

So, are you saying CO2 does or doesn't absorb solar radiation?
So you *are* confused. The leetennant was saying what you were saying, only much better.
rodkeh
1 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2016
Exactly. I don't!


Of course you do.
rodkeh
1 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2016
The leetennant was saying what you were saying, only much better.

You mean, much better at avoiding the subject.
Like you!

You religious zealots are all the same; you don't actually know or understand the subject, just faithfully believe and fearlessly defend, the conventional wisdom.
In light of the fact that throughout human history, conventional wisdom has almost always been proved wrong, it makes one wonder.
Phys1
5 / 5 (9) Mar 10, 2016
Rodkeh
Your statements are all wrong in a no brainer way.
Worse, you are ignorant of your own ignorance as well.
Your head is in the clouds and your feet are nowhere near the ground.
We're not going to solve that here.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2016
What is it US citizens don't get about the "G" in AGW.?


There's no nationalistic monopoly in morons

https://en.wikipe...renchley

We can still compete with the best.

Makes me proud to be British.

What!! You're not proud to be a moron?
No wonder you are bragging about being British, when there is nothing there to brag about.
rodkeh
1 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2016
Rodkeh
Your statements are all wrong in a no brainer way.
Worse, you are ignorant of your own ignorance as well.
Your head is in the clouds and your feet are nowhere near the ground.
We're not going to solve that here.

I'd be surprised if you could solve: 1+1=?
Phys1
5 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2016
@rodkeh
I can solve that for you.
It is false.
Like everything else you say.
rodkeh
1 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2016
@rodkeh
I can solve that for you.
It is false.
Like everything else you say.

nah-nahnah-nah-nah!
rodkeh
1 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2016
I would just like to take this opportunity to thank, all those of you on this forum, that have so kindly helped me to prove that solar energy has nothing to do with climate.

Thank you!
SteveS
5 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2016
I would just like to take this opportunity to thank, all those of you on this forum, that have so kindly helped me to prove that solar energy has nothing to do with climate.

Thank you!


I find it very hard to believe that you seriously believe what you are posting. Could it be that you are a true troll, only posting for a reaction?
rodkeh
1 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2016
I would just like to take this opportunity to thank, all those of you on this forum, that have so kindly helped me to prove that solar energy has nothing to do with climate.

Thank you!


I find it very hard to believe that you seriously believe what you are posting. Could it be that you are a true troll, only posting for a reaction?

Your ignorance is no surprise to me.
SteveS
5 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2016
I would just like to take this opportunity to thank, all those of you on this forum, that have so kindly helped me to prove that solar energy has nothing to do with climate.

Thank you!


I find it very hard to believe that you seriously believe what you are posting. Could it be that you are a true troll, only posting for a reaction?

Your ignorance is no surprise to me.


So that's a yes.
Vietvet
4.7 / 5 (14) Mar 10, 2016
There are only two options with rodkeh.

He is truly a troll or seriously deluded.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2016
There are only two options with rodkeh.

He is truly a troll or seriously deluded.

That is rather rich coming from you.
He has a record of posting about the topic.
All you do is TROLL the forum, down voting the heretics and up voting the Chicken Littles. Once in a while you'll actually type and it is to make a snide remark like the above.
Now, who is deluded.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (15) Mar 10, 2016
Look up the phrase, "solar spectrum". You will find that it encompasses all infrared wavelengths, including that absorbed by CO2, which is exactly what Eunice Foote "PROVED" in 1856!

If the atmospheric CO2 has already absorbed solar radiation, it is already saturated and can not absorb terrestrial radiation. Once the atmosphere is saturated with solar radiation it becomes transparent, in all directions, to all subsequent radiation.

The is no greenhouse effect and solar radiation has nothing to due will climate

Think you might want to look up rayleigh scattering effect...
It's not just visible light that scatters, nor is it just nitrogen or oxygen that contributes to the scattering...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (15) Mar 10, 2016
I would just like to take this opportunity to thank, all those of you on this forum, that have so kindly helped me to prove that solar energy has nothing to do with climate.

Thank you!

silly rabbit.
If it wasn't for solar energy input, we wouldn't have ANY climate..
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 11, 2016
There are only two options with rodkeh.

He is truly a troll or seriously deluded.
@Vietvet
looks a lot like he is BOTH
(i tried to post this 2hours ago, but my computer decided it was going to upgrade to WIN10... f**^$%>@*)

Phys1
5 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2016
@rodkeh
solar energy has nothing to do with climate

With this statement rodkeh shows what a profound idiot he is and outperforms antigoracle.
Congrats.
leetennant
5 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2016
@rodkeh
solar energy has nothing to do with climate

With this statement rodkeh shows what a profound idiot he is and outperforms antigoracle.
Congrats.


It takes something special to go to a science site and deny basic physics. And most deniers like antigoracle tie themselves up into knots trying not to deny the basics like the greenhouse effect while denying the greenhouse effect has any impact (in case you've ever had the pleasure of one of his "climate change is not happening but what's happening is not man made and this man-made change is actually beneficial" shockers). I've never had somebody post the equivalent of "gravity is a force that pushes things away" before.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (13) Mar 11, 2016
I've never had somebody post the equivalent of "gravity is a force that pushes things away" before.
@leetennant
then you have never read reg mundy's posts...
he says gravity don't exist and what we feel is actually "expansion":... of course, he also can't explain the simple stuff that proves this all wrong...

if you want to take a look down a rabbit hole ... check it out

http://phys.org/n...ong.html

oh... almost forgot: he "would" tell us all about it but he can't posts graphs and we should all just "buy his book"

A physicist (Q-Star) read it-essentially, the book review is thus:
it's a whiny life story about pseudoscience... it's not worth the price as charmin is far cheaper and more effective
leetennant
5 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2016
I've never had somebody post the equivalent of "gravity is a force that pushes things away" before.
@leetennant
then you have never read reg mundy's posts...
he says gravity don't exist and what we feel is actually "expansion":... of course, he also can't explain the simple stuff that proves this all wrong...

if you want to take a look down a rabbit hole ... check it out

http://phys.org/n...ong.html

oh... almost forgot: he "would" tell us all about it but he can't posts graphs and we should all just "buy his book"

A physicist (Q-Star) read it-essentially, the book review is thus:
it's a whiny life story about pseudoscience... it's not worth the price as charmin is far cheaper and more effective


Thanks, CS. I think I'll take your word for it,
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2016
rodkeh:
You religious zealots are all the same; you don't actually know or understand the subject, just faithfully believe and fearlessly defend, the conventional wisdom.


Obvious fallacy as religion requires no evidence. Belief is enough.
Science not only requires evidence but repeated experiments by others to confirm, and confirm, and confirm.... IOW It is never "believed".
What happens is the evidence becomes so compelling that it is taken a read (but still until proven otherwise).
Like the GH properties of 400ppm CO2.

You are the classic ABCD denier.
ANYTHING
BUT
CARBON
DIOXIDE.

Now that IS religion my friend.

Oh BTW, when the Nobel-winning paper coming out?
You know, the one where the Earth is heated from inside.
And "solar energy has nothing to do with climate".
Like evidence (peer-reviewed and in a reputable journal) - so that you do not adhere to religion.

FFS:
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2016
runrig:

You are the classic ABCD Chicken Little.
ALWAYS
BELIEVE,
CARBON
DIOXIDE.

That's why you fell for the 63 peer-reviewed "explanations" for the pause. http://hockeyscht...ear.html

Now that IS religion my friend.
leetennant
5 / 5 (6) Mar 14, 2016
I'm sorry, anti, but did you just claim runrig "fell" for published peer-reviewed research by climate scientists? Is that seriously what you just said?
gkam
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2016
I guess Phineas T was right, . . . but about science?

That is the problem with debating those not in sciences or engineering, who think we all just say what we want and it is as good an answer as that of anybody else.

Nope. Anyone can read and parrot back stuff, and anybody usually does, without the often-necessary experience in the field to know what they are saying, and the implications of such.

Those not in hard sciences do not appreciate the rigor which must go into science, and the demands for reproducibility and verification.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2016
That is the problem with debating those not in sciences or engineering blah blah blah

...BS blah blah BS

Those not in hard sciences do not appreciate the rigor which must go into science, and the demands for reproducibility and verification.
...so, what you are saying is:

the laymen classes should bow and appreciate the work of the educated engineers and scientists (like what you consider yourself) because of all the hard work and dedication...EVEN when we can prove you wrong by linking evidence that you are either ignoring, didn't know about, or because you lie through your teeth????

how is that teaching the scientific method or even critical thinking?

you are advocating for "argument from authority" regardless of content ... which is directly contradictory to the scientific method

in fact, that is the position of religion - the "do as i preach, not as i do, or what should be done"
https://www.youtu...l5ntikaU

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.