The answer was found in the form of proactive moderation
....causing the creation of this single thread, which has garnered a half million views?
.....let's have some more libtardian proactive moderation, buddy.
Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 46. (Read 636446 times)
The answer was found in the form of proactive moderation
....causing the creation of this single thread, which has garnered a half million views?
.....let's have some more libtardian proactive moderation, buddy.
The answer was found in the form of proactive moderation
The question was this.
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....
That's the question I answered. And no, answering a question from the point of view of thermodynamics and the third law is not an arbitrary subjective opinion. It's a scientific rebuttal. I believe that was what was asked for.
Bolded above is inaccurate. Retention of heat in the atmosphere by CO2 absorption is not highest next to the ground but lowest. Think about it. Solar rays enter the atmosphere and immediately certain spectra are absorbed. Some rays continue down 100k feet. .... 80k...60k....40k...20k...surface. By the gas laws and partial pressures, CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere. In other words, there cannot be a higher percentage of CO2 in one place than another, such as can be the case with water vapor. (This is true over time and globally. Regionally, one can see higher ppm of CO2 next to a factory, a volcano, downwind of a city, etc. Mixing of two gases occurs rapidly, basically at the speed of sound in the gases IIRC)
The meaning of this with respect to the CO2 absorption spectra is by the time sunlight gets to the ground those lines are already long gone. I don't think this is related to the central issue you are concerned about though. Say you have a pot on the stove. You add heat to one corner of it or another, or at the base or half way up, it will all equilibrate pretty quickly. Not so with the Earth.
You ignored my question and I still stand behind my point.
I am under the impression that the rate of spectral absorption by CO2/greenhouse gasses is dependent on the frequency of the radiation. As the rays hit the earth the radiation shifts in frequency. It is the difference in how the these 2 spectrum responses work that make up a large portion of the effect of global warming. You seem to think it is simpler than that given your response.
I'll tell you why sat. data is not as useful. It is because not much lives up in the atmosphere. Those temperatures are only important in an indirect manner. Surface temperate data would be much more useful. While you give valid reasons, it isn't enough to be convincing as to why we should prefer data of temperatures far above the Earth where it only impacts us indirectly. IMO, you're just cherry picking your data.
Bolded above makes no sense. CO2 absorbs specific spectral lines.
Then "as the rays hit the earth radiation shifts in frequency." This probably is your way of saying that although visible light is absorbed by the CO2 molecule, infra red (heat) is emitted.
Then "it is the difference in how these 2 spectral responses work..." This makes no sense. Anyway the IR emission is the heat. Radiant heat is the IR.
As for "surface temperature data would be much more useful," it does not matter if the "surface temperature data" cannot be precisely measured, and it cannot, as I previously illustrated.
The meteorological phrase "Lapse Rate" refers to the difference in temperature with altitude. It is 3C per 1000 meters. So from a data set of 10k foot altitudes, "ground temperatures" can easily be computed. The equations for Lapse Rate describe functions of a gaseous envelope in a gravitational field. They are not opinions.
It's rather laughable to advocate a bunch of scattered, irregular thermometers on the ground as opposed to satellite measurements for reasons of figuring a "global temperature." As previously noted, of course there's no problem with using a ground based temperature to find local or regional temperature. Say up to a 500 mile diameter around, maybe.
I get the impression you do not understand these mechanisms. Nothing wrong with that but argue about stuff you don't understand?
The question was this.
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....
That's the question I answered. And no, answering a question from the point of view of thermodynamics and the third law is not an arbitrary subjective opinion. It's a scientific rebuttal. I believe that was what was asked for.
Bolded above is inaccurate. Retention of heat in the atmosphere by CO2 absorption is not highest next to the ground but lowest. Think about it. Solar rays enter the atmosphere and immediately certain spectra are absorbed. Some rays continue down 100k feet. .... 80k...60k....40k...20k...surface. By the gas laws and partial pressures, CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere. In other words, there cannot be a higher percentage of CO2 in one place than another, such as can be the case with water vapor. (This is true over time and globally. Regionally, one can see higher ppm of CO2 next to a factory, a volcano, downwind of a city, etc. Mixing of two gases occurs rapidly, basically at the speed of sound in the gases IIRC)
The meaning of this with respect to the CO2 absorption spectra is by the time sunlight gets to the ground those lines are already long gone. I don't think this is related to the central issue you are concerned about though. Say you have a pot on the stove. You add heat to one corner of it or another, or at the base or half way up, it will all equilibrate pretty quickly. Not so with the Earth.
You ignored my question and I still stand behind my point.
I am under the impression that the rate of spectral absorption by CO2/greenhouse gasses is dependent on the frequency of the radiation. As the rays hit the earth the radiation shifts in frequency. It is the difference in how the these 2 spectrum responses work that make up a large portion of the effect of global warming. You seem to think it is simpler than that given your response.
I'll tell you why sat. data is not as useful. It is because not much lives up in the atmosphere. Those temperatures are only important in an indirect manner. Surface temperate data would be much more useful. While you give valid reasons, it isn't enough to be convincing as to why we should prefer data of temperatures far above the Earth where it only impacts us indirectly. IMO, you're just cherry picking your data.
Same with CO2..More cars more factories in your area the more chance of cancer ..POLLUTION..
Also the science you know is not to be taken seriously..
You think the twin towers fell by fire also building 7 fell by fire..So we can safely say Your science knowledge is piss poor..
lol, if we ever meet up I am buying the beer.Also the science you know is not to be taken seriously..
You think the twin towers fell by fire also building 7 fell by fire..So we can safely say Your science knowledge is piss poor..
I have never met anyone who so earnestly and sincerely started with the desired conclusion, and worked backwards to select and make the facts fit with it.
....
I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...
It's important to understand that the ground based thermometer database is AMENDABLE TO TWEAKING. Period.I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...
OK, without any ad hominem attacks (which this thread seems to be descending into), can someone explain simply what's wrong with this data:
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....
Ground temperature data is okay for regional climate issue, but not global. By it's nature, "ground temperature data" attempts to combine multiphase physical systems into an aggregate of "temperature." To see the problem with this, consider trying to take the temperature above an ice cube, or six inches above a pan of boiling water. These systems are not in thermal equilibrium.
A temperature reading from a polar orbiting satellite measures aspects of gas ONLY, say at 10k feet. It is thus a measure of a system which is in thermal equilibrium and which thus is credible.
The ground temperature network is inappropriate and actually ridiculous for attempting to derive a "global temperature." The fact that in the US, an obscure sub agency of NASA uses NOAA data to produce propaganda on "Latest record shattering Temperature <
A reasonable way to deal with this would be to consider as credible, the satellite data, and not as credible, the ground based thermometer networks, for matters concerning "climate change." This will eventually come to pass, but for some years expect to see the bureaucracies built on top of the thermometer networks to continue to shout.
Why do you keep saying at 10k feet? Yes there are problems with the ground based temperature networks. There are problems with taking temperatures for all sorts of reasons and I'm sure you can go into great detail.
I don't see how taking the temperature far above the planet's surface is somehow unequivocally and magically better. That however is your jump which happens to be mighty convenient given the data.
You appeal to science by pointing out that you can take the temperature above a boiling pan vs an ice cube and have it effect the readings? Thats your example. Literally.
A number of altitudes are referenced by satellite temperature systems. 10k is just one of them.
2nd bolded statement. Well, if you didn't understand what I said. Maybe you might want to think it out. Maybe a first year physics textbook?
I understand what you say, but it is still just an arbitrary subjective opinion about discounting temperatures sources. I'll probably read into the satellite stuff a bit more because it seems to be important in your argument. I agree there will be longterm biases on temperatures taken by individuals.
At this point there is enough extra melted ice to realize that yes things are very significantly changing. It isn't some big global conspiracy that is happening. All the data you don't agree with will have some possible source of bias.
It is sort of obvious so I didn't find it worth bringing up, but the temperature at 10k feet is going to be signficantly less affected by global warming. The average temperature is already way lower at 10k feet vs sea-level/surface. Greenhouse gasses at the ground will also be catching the highest level of radiation intensity. I'm not going to explain all this because thats not my thing. It should be obvious if you actually understand how this stuff works. My point here is that you just randomly ignore all this, and treat these satellite measurements to be near perfection when it isn't even measuring what needs to be measured - the surface temperature.
TLDR;
you basically cherry pick your data.
The question was this.
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....
That's the question I answered. And no, answering a question from the point of view of thermodynamics and the third law is not an arbitrary subjective opinion. It's a scientific rebuttal. I believe that was what was asked for.
Bolded above is inaccurate. Retention of heat in the atmosphere by CO2 absorption is not highest next to the ground but lowest. Think about it. Solar rays enter the atmosphere and immediately certain spectra are absorbed. Some rays continue down 100k feet. .... 80k...60k....40k...20k...surface. By the gas laws and partial pressures, CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere. In other words, there cannot be a higher percentage of CO2 in one place than another, such as can be the case with water vapor. (This is true over time and globally. Regionally, one can see higher ppm of CO2 next to a factory, a volcano, downwind of a city, etc. Mixing of two gases occurs rapidly, basically at the speed of sound in the gases IIRC)
The meaning of this with respect to the CO2 absorption spectra is by the time sunlight gets to the ground those lines are already long gone. I don't think this is related to the central issue you are concerned about though. Say you have a pot on the stove. You add heat to one corner of it or another, or at the base or half way up, it will all equilibrate pretty quickly. Not so with the Earth.
Same with CO2..More cars more factories in your area the more chance of cancer ..POLLUTION..
Also the science you know is not to be taken seriously..
You think the twin towers fell by fire also building 7 fell by fire..So we can safely say Your science knowledge is piss poor..
....
I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...
It's important to understand that the ground based thermometer database is AMENDABLE TO TWEAKING. Period.I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...
OK, without any ad hominem attacks (which this thread seems to be descending into), can someone explain simply what's wrong with this data:
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....
Ground temperature data is okay for regional climate issue, but not global. By it's nature, "ground temperature data" attempts to combine multiphase physical systems into an aggregate of "temperature." To see the problem with this, consider trying to take the temperature above an ice cube, or six inches above a pan of boiling water. These systems are not in thermal equilibrium.
A temperature reading from a polar orbiting satellite measures aspects of gas ONLY, say at 10k feet. It is thus a measure of a system which is in thermal equilibrium and which thus is credible.
The ground temperature network is inappropriate and actually ridiculous for attempting to derive a "global temperature." The fact that in the US, an obscure sub agency of NASA uses NOAA data to produce propaganda on "Latest record shattering Temperature <
A reasonable way to deal with this would be to consider as credible, the satellite data, and not as credible, the ground based thermometer networks, for matters concerning "climate change." This will eventually come to pass, but for some years expect to see the bureaucracies built on top of the thermometer networks to continue to shout.
Why do you keep saying at 10k feet? Yes there are problems with the ground based temperature networks. There are problems with taking temperatures for all sorts of reasons and I'm sure you can go into great detail.
I don't see how taking the temperature far above the planet's surface is somehow unequivocally and magically better. That however is your jump which happens to be mighty convenient given the data.
You appeal to science by pointing out that you can take the temperature above a boiling pan vs an ice cube and have it effect the readings? Thats your example. Literally.
A number of altitudes are referenced by satellite temperature systems. 10k is just one of them.
2nd bolded statement. Well, if you didn't understand what I said. Maybe you might want to think it out. Maybe a first year physics textbook?
I understand what you say, but it is still just an arbitrary subjective opinion about discounting temperatures sources. I'll probably read into the satellite stuff a bit more because it seems to be important in your argument. I agree there will be longterm biases on temperatures taken by individuals.
At this point there is enough extra melted ice to realize that yes things are very significantly changing. It isn't some big global conspiracy that is happening. All the data you don't agree with will have some possible source of bias.
It is sort of obvious so I didn't find it worth bringing up, but the temperature at 10k feet is going to be signficantly less affected by global warming. The average temperature is already way lower at 10k feet vs sea-level/surface. Greenhouse gasses at the ground will also be catching the highest level of radiation intensity. I'm not going to explain all this because thats not my thing. It should be obvious if you actually understand how this stuff works. My point here is that you just randomly ignore all this, and treat these satellite measurements to be near perfection when it isn't even measuring what needs to be measured - the surface temperature.
TLDR;
you basically cherry pick your data.
The question was this.
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....
That's the question I answered. And no, answering a question from the point of view of thermodynamics and the third law is not an arbitrary subjective opinion. It's a scientific rebuttal. I believe that was what was asked for.
Bolded above is inaccurate. Retention of heat in the atmosphere by CO2 absorption is not highest next to the ground but lowest. Think about it. Solar rays enter the atmosphere and immediately certain spectra are absorbed. Some rays continue down 100k feet. .... 80k...60k....40k...20k...surface. By the gas laws and partial pressures, CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere. In other words, there cannot be a higher percentage of CO2 in one place than another, such as can be the case with water vapor. (This is true over time and globally. Regionally, one can see higher ppm of CO2 next to a factory, a volcano, downwind of a city, etc. Mixing of two gases occurs rapidly, basically at the speed of sound in the gases IIRC)
The meaning of this with respect to the CO2 absorption spectra is by the time sunlight gets to the ground those lines are already long gone. I don't think this is related to the central issue you are concerned about though. Say you have a pot on the stove. You add heat to one corner of it or another, or at the base or half way up, it will all equilibrate pretty quickly. Not so with the Earth.
craig wright is responsible for gobal warming.
....
I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...
It's important to understand that the ground based thermometer database is AMENDABLE TO TWEAKING. Period.I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...
OK, without any ad hominem attacks (which this thread seems to be descending into), can someone explain simply what's wrong with this data:
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....
Ground temperature data is okay for regional climate issue, but not global. By it's nature, "ground temperature data" attempts to combine multiphase physical systems into an aggregate of "temperature." To see the problem with this, consider trying to take the temperature above an ice cube, or six inches above a pan of boiling water. These systems are not in thermal equilibrium.
A temperature reading from a polar orbiting satellite measures aspects of gas ONLY, say at 10k feet. It is thus a measure of a system which is in thermal equilibrium and which thus is credible.
The ground temperature network is inappropriate and actually ridiculous for attempting to derive a "global temperature." The fact that in the US, an obscure sub agency of NASA uses NOAA data to produce propaganda on "Latest record shattering Temperature <
A reasonable way to deal with this would be to consider as credible, the satellite data, and not as credible, the ground based thermometer networks, for matters concerning "climate change." This will eventually come to pass, but for some years expect to see the bureaucracies built on top of the thermometer networks to continue to shout.
Why do you keep saying at 10k feet? Yes there are problems with the ground based temperature networks. There are problems with taking temperatures for all sorts of reasons and I'm sure you can go into great detail.
I don't see how taking the temperature far above the planet's surface is somehow unequivocally and magically better. That however is your jump which happens to be mighty convenient given the data.
You appeal to science by pointing out that you can take the temperature above a boiling pan vs an ice cube and have it effect the readings? Thats your example. Literally.
A number of altitudes are referenced by satellite temperature systems. 10k is just one of them.
2nd bolded statement. Well, if you didn't understand what I said. Maybe you might want to think it out. Maybe a first year physics textbook?
I understand what you say, but it is still just an arbitrary subjective opinion about discounting temperatures sources. I'll probably read into the satellite stuff a bit more because it seems to be important in your argument. I agree there will be longterm biases on temperatures taken by individuals.
At this point there is enough extra melted ice to realize that yes things are very significantly changing. It isn't some big global conspiracy that is happening. All the data you don't agree with will have some possible source of bias.
It is sort of obvious so I didn't find it worth bringing up, but the temperature at 10k feet is going to be signficantly less affected by global warming. The average temperature is already way lower at 10k feet vs sea-level/surface. Greenhouse gasses at the ground will also be catching the highest level of radiation intensity. I'm not going to explain all this because thats not my thing. It should be obvious if you actually understand how this stuff works. My point here is that you just randomly ignore all this, and treat these satellite measurements to be near perfection when it isn't even measuring what needs to be measured - the surface temperature.
TLDR;
you basically cherry pick your data.
....
I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...
It's important to understand that the ground based thermometer database is AMENDABLE TO TWEAKING. Period.I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...
OK, without any ad hominem attacks (which this thread seems to be descending into), can someone explain simply what's wrong with this data:
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....
Ground temperature data is okay for regional climate issue, but not global. By it's nature, "ground temperature data" attempts to combine multiphase physical systems into an aggregate of "temperature." To see the problem with this, consider trying to take the temperature above an ice cube, or six inches above a pan of boiling water. These systems are not in thermal equilibrium.
A temperature reading from a polar orbiting satellite measures aspects of gas ONLY, say at 10k feet. It is thus a measure of a system which is in thermal equilibrium and which thus is credible.
The ground temperature network is inappropriate and actually ridiculous for attempting to derive a "global temperature." The fact that in the US, an obscure sub agency of NASA uses NOAA data to produce propaganda on "Latest record shattering Temperature <
A reasonable way to deal with this would be to consider as credible, the satellite data, and not as credible, the ground based thermometer networks, for matters concerning "climate change." This will eventually come to pass, but for some years expect to see the bureaucracies built on top of the thermometer networks to continue to shout.
Why do you keep saying at 10k feet? Yes there are problems with the ground based temperature networks. There are problems with taking temperatures for all sorts of reasons and I'm sure you can go into great detail.
I don't see how taking the temperature far above the planet's surface is somehow unequivocally and magically better. That however is your jump which happens to be mighty convenient given the data.
You appeal to science by pointing out that you can take the temperature above a boiling pan vs an ice cube and have it effect the readings? Thats your example. Literally.
A number of altitudes are referenced by satellite temperature systems. 10k is just one of them.
2nd bolded statement. Well, if you didn't understand what I said. Maybe you might want to think it out. Maybe a first year physics textbook?
....
I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...
It's important to understand that the ground based thermometer database is AMENDABLE TO TWEAKING. Period.I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...
OK, without any ad hominem attacks (which this thread seems to be descending into), can someone explain simply what's wrong with this data:
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....
Ground temperature data is okay for regional climate issue, but not global. By it's nature, "ground temperature data" attempts to combine multiphase physical systems into an aggregate of "temperature." To see the problem with this, consider trying to take the temperature above an ice cube, or six inches above a pan of boiling water. These systems are not in thermal equilibrium.
A temperature reading from a polar orbiting satellite measures aspects of gas ONLY, say at 10k feet. It is thus a measure of a system which is in thermal equilibrium and which thus is credible.
The ground temperature network is inappropriate and actually ridiculous for attempting to derive a "global temperature." The fact that in the US, an obscure sub agency of NASA uses NOAA data to produce propaganda on "Latest record shattering Temperature <
A reasonable way to deal with this would be to consider as credible, the satellite data, and not as credible, the ground based thermometer networks, for matters concerning "climate change." This will eventually come to pass, but for some years expect to see the bureaucracies built on top of the thermometer networks to continue to shout.
Why do you keep saying at 10k feet? Yes there are problems with the ground based temperature networks. There are problems with taking temperatures for all sorts of reasons and I'm sure you can go into great detail.
I don't see how taking the temperature far above the planet's surface is somehow unequivocally and magically better. That however is your jump which happens to be mighty convenient given the data.
You appeal to science by pointing out that you can take the temperature above a boiling pan vs an ice cube and have it effect the readings? Thats your example. Literally.
The clouds and water vapor are a constant. Yes, they will be affect the climate but they're a constant. You guys like to throw in random stuff and appeal to science but never really go into detail about this stuff. I see it time and time again. Your prose would have someone who isn't educated and intelligent give you credibility, but there really is little there.
So you believe in the science behind the basic argument of why global warming exists. Can you tell me what has mitigated this and made it a non issue?
There is cynicism and then there is stupidity. Those fossil fuels have been burned at a high rate over a really short span of time when you look at the history of the world. It should surprise no one that such things would not seriously impact the climate.
You guys always find one little thing and harp on it. I'm not sure about the climate heating having paused for 19 years. There are many things that scientists attribute to the change that are already happening. I'm sure some of these guys are wrong, but I highly doubt they're all wrong.
I can also show you how the previous month (well possibly Feb) was the hottest month on record.
Why on earth would 'clouds and water vapor be constant'? That assertion makes no sense on almost any time scale or any conceptual model.
A vague conceptual understanding that radiative energy transmissions occur, and CO2 has some influence on it, and it can make earth hot is a start but is not really going to do it. Going to have to move forward a little bit from here.
In addition to starting to consider things a little bit quantitatively, two concepts to appreciate next are 'infrared opacity' and 'radiative convective equilibrium.
Here's a relatively clear explanation:
https://youtu.be/rCya4LilBZ8?t=55m30s
This lecture does a good job of illustrating the total absurdity of the whole global climate change scam.
Lol damn I got under your skin.
These negatives were meticulously processed and restored by a Wellington photography conservator
That's a truly amazing story.
http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/antarctica-conservators-discover-100-year-old-negatives
....
I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...
It's important to understand that the ground based thermometer database is AMENDABLE TO TWEAKING. Period.I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...
OK, without any ad hominem attacks (which this thread seems to be descending into), can someone explain simply what's wrong with this data:
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....
Ground temperature data is okay for regional climate issue, but not global. By it's nature, "ground temperature data" attempts to combine multiphase physical systems into an aggregate of "temperature." To see the problem with this, consider trying to take the temperature above an ice cube, or six inches above a pan of boiling water. These systems are not in thermal equilibrium.
A temperature reading from a polar orbiting satellite measures aspects of gas ONLY, say at 10k feet. It is thus a measure of a system which is in thermal equilibrium and which thus is credible.
The ground temperature network is inappropriate and actually ridiculous for attempting to derive a "global temperature." The fact that in the US, an obscure sub agency of NASA uses NOAA data to produce propaganda on "Latest record shattering Temperature <
A reasonable way to deal with this would be to consider as credible, the satellite data, and not as credible, the ground based thermometer networks, for matters concerning "climate change." This will eventually come to pass, but for some years expect to see the bureaucracies built on top of the thermometer networks to continue to shout.
Too bad you weren't my science teacher....
Reflect on what that says about the ignorance of Warmers.
Does Devout Belief in Global Warming cause unlearning of eighth grade math (linear regression) and eight grade science (phases of matter)?
These negatives were meticulously processed and restored by a Wellington photography conservator
....
I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...
It's important to understand that the ground based thermometer database is AMENDABLE TO TWEAKING. Period.I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...
OK, without any ad hominem attacks (which this thread seems to be descending into), can someone explain simply what's wrong with this data:
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....
Ground temperature data is okay for regional climate issue, but not global. By it's nature, "ground temperature data" attempts to combine multiphase physical systems into an aggregate of "temperature." To see the problem with this, consider trying to take the temperature above an ice cube, or six inches above a pan of boiling water. These systems are not in thermal equilibrium.
A temperature reading from a polar orbiting satellite measures aspects of gas ONLY, say at 10k feet. It is thus a measure of a system which is in thermal equilibrium and which thus is credible.
The ground temperature network is inappropriate and actually ridiculous for attempting to derive a "global temperature." The fact that in the US, an obscure sub agency of NASA uses NOAA data to produce propaganda on "Latest record shattering Temperature <
A reasonable way to deal with this would be to consider as credible, the satellite data, and not as credible, the ground based thermometer networks, for matters concerning "climate change." This will eventually come to pass, but for some years expect to see the bureaucracies built on top of the thermometer networks to continue to shout.
Too bad you weren't my science teacher....
....
I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...
It's important to understand that the ground based thermometer database is AMENDABLE TO TWEAKING. Period.I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...
OK, without any ad hominem attacks (which this thread seems to be descending into), can someone explain simply what's wrong with this data:
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....
Ground temperature data is okay for regional climate issue, but not global. By it's nature, "ground temperature data" attempts to combine multiphase physical systems into an aggregate of "temperature." To see the problem with this, consider trying to take the temperature above an ice cube, or six inches above a pan of boiling water. These systems are not in thermal equilibrium.
A temperature reading from a polar orbiting satellite measures aspects of gas ONLY, say at 10k feet. It is thus a measure of a system which is in thermal equilibrium and which thus is credible.
The ground temperature network is inappropriate and actually ridiculous for attempting to derive a "global temperature." The fact that in the US, an obscure sub agency of NASA uses NOAA data to produce propaganda on "Latest record shattering Temperature <
A reasonable way to deal with this would be to consider as credible, the satellite data, and not as credible, the ground based thermometer networks, for matters concerning "climate change." This will eventually come to pass, but for some years expect to see the bureaucracies built on top of the thermometer networks to continue to shout.
OK, without any ad hominem attacks (which this thread seems to be descending into), can someone explain simply what's wrong with this data:
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
I understand that some of this data may been tweaked, but I've read from reputable sources that this tweaking is a valid manipulation of skewed data from the past; ie. it is correcting inconsistencies due to recording and locational anomalies.
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. If data from another source is more valid, please reference the data and explain why it is more valid. I hate how both sides of the climate change debate have descended into shit-slinging and misinformation, I just want some unbiased information.
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
I understand that some of this data may been tweaked, but I've read from reputable sources that this tweaking is a valid manipulation of skewed data from the past; ie. it is correcting inconsistencies due to recording and locational anomalies.
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. If data from another source is more valid, please reference the data and explain why it is more valid. I hate how both sides of the climate change debate have descended into shit-slinging and misinformation, I just want some unbiased information.
The clouds and water vapor are a constant. Yes, they will be affect the climate but they're a constant. You guys like to throw in random stuff and appeal to science but never really go into detail about this stuff. I see it time and time again. Your prose would have someone who isn't educated and intelligent give you credibility, but there really is little there.
So you believe in the science behind the basic argument of why global warming exists. Can you tell me what has mitigated this and made it a non issue?
There is cynicism and then there is stupidity. Those fossil fuels have been burned at a high rate over a really short span of time when you look at the history of the world. It should surprise no one that such things would not seriously impact the climate.
You guys always find one little thing and harp on it. I'm not sure about the climate heating having paused for 19 years. There are many things that scientists attribute to the change that are already happening. I'm sure some of these guys are wrong, but I highly doubt they're all wrong.
I can also show you how the previous month (well possibly Feb) was the hottest month on record.
Why on earth would 'clouds and water vapor be constant'? That assertion makes no sense on almost any time scale or any conceptual model.
A vague conceptual understanding that radiative energy transmissions occur, and CO2 has some influence on it, and it can make earth hot is a start but is not really going to do it. Going to have to move forward a little bit from here.
In addition to starting to consider things a little bit quantitatively, two concepts to appreciate next are 'infrared opacity' and 'radiative convective equilibrium.
Here's a relatively clear explanation:
https://youtu.be/rCya4LilBZ8?t=55m30s
This lecture does a good job of illustrating the total absurdity of the whole global climate change scam.
.....
"Climate alarmists" as you say, aren't saying that satellite are lying. They adopt a critical perspective over the idea of measuring temperature thanks to satellite and balloon as it needs to define an "average temperature".
They're not denying the existence of satellite measure, they just add all the temperature records way and try to find the truth out of it. You can't just threw away the temperatures recorded "on the ground" in the same way that you can't threw the satellite or balloon ones. You have to find the middle.
....
"Climate alarmists" as you say, aren't saying that satellite are lying. They adopt a critical perspective over the idea of measuring temperature thanks to satellite and balloon as it needs to define an "average temperature".
They're not denying the existence of satellite measure, they just add all the temperature records way and try to find the truth out of it. You can't just threw away the temperatures recorded "on the ground" in the same way that you can't threw the satellite or balloon ones. You have to find the middle.
....
I'm certain you are well intentioned and sincere, but this these statements above are neither correct as to the practice of scientists, or true. No, scientists do not just "add up all the temperature records."
Certain studies of climate may best be done with ground, or water temperatures. Depends on the work. However, for global temperatures, the only actual scientific method is to measure air at a specific altitude as is done by the polar orbiting satellites.
On the Earth, on the surface, no global temperature can be measured or estimated. Atmosphere at, say 10,000 feet is a gas, period. The Earth is a multiphase system with solid, liquid and gaseous components. A combination of phases is not amendable to finding an "average temperature."
Also, yes we do have climate alarmists right on this thread that refuse to accept satellite data indicating no global warming in 19 years. It's fairly routine to see climate alarmists who are Deniers of one sort or another of science.
Jump to: