Breaking Heat records all over by 10 degrees

a reply to: Phage

1. I don't have access to the raw data.
2. I don't have the information on instruments used.
3. I don't have information on how the data was collected, who collected the data, who vetted the data collectors.
4. I don't have access to the calibration protocols for the instrumentation.


I suppose I could just take it on faith, but my science background taught me to question everything.

I will read up on Muller however.


Skepticism used to be a positive attribute in science.

Used to be.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Ah... I understand, I referenced the heretics.
principia-scientific.org...

Our specific objectives include:

Promoting the broadest possible dissemination of impartial science information untainted by politics or corporate interest in as many languages and to as many nations as possible
Advancing independent, non-affiliated scientific discoveries unencumbered by political ideology or corporate financial interest.
Providing impartial scientific advice and evidence to international policymakers, news outlets and the general public
Being a cost effective ebook publishing service to our members at preferential rates for their personal and career advancement
Offering financial support either by grant or loan, to authors in science who we believe have potential to advance the association’s core values
Discouraging inappropriate or unconscionable scientific methods by exposing them where they are proven to exist

I can see where any scientific organization that openly separates themselves from the bonds of political and corporate interests, rejects restricting knowledge to only the world's elite societies, selects their own for funding and grant money to foster actual scientific research which digs into the corporate and political racket of restricting funds to only those protective of the scam, and actually holding the real spirit of the scientific method above the gangster bastardization of it used loosely around the AGW church could pose a serious threat to your cause.

Your reaction speaks volumes.

Yeah, it speaks to me getting how misinformed you are.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: seasonal

Principia Scientific is bat# insane, even Dr. Roy Spencer called it out. Do not waste my time or anyone else's time with that idiocy. They don't believe or understand many fundamental physics laws or calculations.

E: as an example for people who don't read links, this is the first thing their insane ramblings say in response to Dr. Spencer's criticism:

There is no greenhouse effect

That article you linked previously claims CO2 causes cooling.

Why is Venus (mostly CO2) warmer at the surface than Mercury?

Why is Mars (almost entirely CO2) warmer than it would be without an atmosphere?

principa-scientifica enshrines pseudoscientific technobabble

Like I said earlier, you are the one getting scammed.

a reply to: DBCowboy


1) Have you tried to obtain it?
2) Have you tried to obtain it?
3) Have you tried to obtain it?
4) Have you tried to obtain it?


Other than demanding it from ATS members, that is.

No silver platters for you.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I suppose I could just take it on faith,

That's all they're doing because it confirms their bias.

No mater what.

The planet is out ta git 'em.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy


1) Have you tried to obtain it?
2) Have you tried to obtain it?
3) Have you tried to obtain it?
4) Have you tried to obtain it?


Other than demanding it from ATS members, that is.

No silver platters for you.

Actually yes.

I've looked and came up empty. But I will always continue to look.

Like Diogenes, I'm hoping for an honest scientist.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: DBCowboy

It's like I went to church and questioned the existence of God.

You did.

Surprised the church of climatology didn't burn you at the stake.

Here's its foundation:
1) Greenhouse gases alter the energy distribution in the atmosphere.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
3) Humans are emitting vast amounts of CO2
4) Ergo, humans are causing change to energy distribution in the atmosphere, also known as climate change

If none of these are wrong, then human-induced climate change is reality.
If one of these are wrong, then human-induced climate change is in question.

Be a hero.

1. Validate the data collected that would lead you to your assertion on energy distribution. So far, the data hasn't been validated. You are taking it on faith.

2. CO2 has been around at higher levels with different climates throughout history. Hanging your hat on CO2 is a poor risk.

3. That is true.

4. You cannot make a declaritive statement without all the facts, and you are basing your assertions on data that has not been vetted.

1) No, I am not. The amount of energy reaching the Earth from the Sun is only sufficient to warm the Earth to 255 K. You know how cold 255 K is, right? Instead, the atmosphere is warmer at the surface, cools to the troposphere (well below 255 K), stays virtually the same temperature through the tropopause, then warms through the stratosphere. That's almost all of the atmospheric mass. We know from countless measurements over two hundred years of spectroscopy the absorptive properties of gases like CO2, H2O, O2, O3, etc.

You are pulling things from your buttocks. Verify and validate the data used to make your declarations. All I'm asking.


I'm not even going to discuss the global-climate-change-temperature-drama-carbon-Gore-piss myself-issues until I see a study or studies done on the data collection.

Because as far as I can tell, the data collection is all confirmation-biased to prove or validate a hypothesis.


Bad science.


If I had a student try this # in the graduate classes that I taught, I'd have failed them.

Ah goody, more demeaning remarks.

Nope. You clearly have 0 knowledge in this field. Stop trying to pull the authority figure bullcrap. That's based on numerous atmospheric measurements mostly unrelated to climate science over the past hundred years. It's also based on physics.

Ever hear of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation ? E = σT^4
E = energy flux (W/m^2)
σ = 5.67×10^-8 W/m^2
T = temperature (in Kelvin)

Incoming solar power averaged over the Earth's surface with its current albedo is ~240 W/m^2:
~240 W/m^2 = 5.67x10^-8 W/m^2 * T^4
T = (240 W/m^2 / 5.67x10^-8 W/m^2)^(1/4)
T = ~255K

Now that that is over with, let's look at what I said about the distribution of temperature in the atmosphere.

originally posted by: Greven
If we did not have greenhouse gases, the Earth as a whole would be approximately 255°K - below freezing. That's for today - the Sun is thought to have increased in its output as it has aged. Now, that 255°K would be for the whole of the atmosphere. Pressure determines mass; a good rule of thumb is that 50% of the remaining mass of the atmosphere will be below every 5.6km increase in altitude. Thus, 50% of atmospheric mass is within about 5.6km of the surface, 75% is within about 11.2km, 87.5% is within about 16.8km, and so on. More than 98% of the Earth's atmospheric mass is below about 33.6km.

UAH for example defines 'lower troposphere' to be from near the surface up to about 8km. Temperature falls with altitude above the surface in the troposphere (the lowest 75% of the atmosphere), as anyone who has been on top of a mountain will understand; this lapse rate is about -6.49 °K/km. Given a mean surface temperature of 288°K, you can guess the temperature for 3/4ths of the atmosphere and about how much mass it makes up. Let's do it roughly by taking the start temperatures and saying that's how much a particular section is (this is slightly inaccurate):
00km: 288.00°K @ 0%
01km: 281.51°K @ 11.3% * 288.00°K = 32.54400°K
02km: 275.02°K @ 10.2% * 281.51°K = 28.71402°K
03km: 268.53°K @ 09.3% * 275.02°K = 25.57686°K
04km: 262.04°K @ 08.4% * 268.53°K = 22.55652°K
05km: 255.55°K @ 07.5% * 262.04°K = 19.65300°K
06km: 249.06°K @ 06.7% * 255.55°K = 17.12185°K
07km: 242.57°K @ 06.1% * 249.06°K = 15.19266°K
08km: 236.08°K @ 05.4% * 242.57°K = 13.09878°K
09km: 229.59°K @ 04.8% * 236.08°K = 11.33184°K
10km: 223.10°K @ 04.2% * 229.59°K = 09.64278°K
11km: 216.65°K @ 03.8% * 223.10°K = 08.47780°K
77.7% of atmospheric mass totals to 203.91011°K

From 11km to 20km is the tropopause, where it's roughly the same temperature and where most remaining mass is:
Pause: 216.65°K @ 18.1% * 216.65°K = 39.21365°K
18.1% of atmospheric mass adds 39.21365°K

This leaves about 4.26% of atmospheric mass unaccounted for; the stratosphere is above the troposphere (by some definitions it includes the relatively constant tropopause) and actually goes up in temperature with height, averaging about 250.15°K. It also makes up almost all of the remaining atmospheric mass.
4.2% of atmospheric mass adds 10.5063°K

The total then is 253.63006°K, though it should be 255°K by the Stefan-Boltzmann calculation; probably this discrepancy is the stratospheric portion (warmer 9-11km range in some latitudes) or small errors in rounding from these calculations... but it's pretty close.

You are literally denying physics.

a reply to: Greven

You are playing checkers while the rest of us are playing chess.

You're cute.


But annoying.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

You are playing checkers while the rest of us are playing chess.

You're cute.


But annoying.

As expected from a troll, no meaningful response.

Every single time I have tried to engage you with a meaningful response, you have done this nonsense.

a reply to: Greven

I've actually wasted time trying to explain my position, to no avail.


You will believe what you believe regardless.

*shrug*
I would only hope that you were mature enough to reciprocate in kind.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Greven

I've actually wasted time trying to explain my position, to no avail.


You will believe what you believe regardless.

*shrug*
I would only hope that you were mature enough to reciprocate in kind.

That's why you immediately dismissed my response to your accusation:

originally posted by: DBCowboy
You are pulling things from your buttocks

Nobody is falling for it.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I've looked and came up empty. But I will always continue to look.

How hard?

www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

a reply to: Greven

And no one has yet to answer my questions.

Imagine that!

a reply to: Phage

Neato!

Still doesn't answer my questions on variances.

But closer.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I gave you one platter. That shows you haven't really looked very hard. That you're whining.

Research for it's own sake can lead you to many wonderful places.

a reply to: DBCowboy
I've refuted your attempt at refuting my first point.
Your response to my second point was irrelevant.
You've already accepted my third point.
Given that the fourth point follows the first three, you're back to having a problem.

You have a few options:
Refute my refutation
Run away / continue deflecting / continue trolling
Accept the thesis that human-induced climate change is reality

a reply to: Phage

I'm interested in variance studies between equipment used 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 10 years ago and how it correlates with equipment used now.

If we're actually interested in looking for changes and not just confirming biases, that is.

a reply to: Greven

It's funny, different proportions and pressures cause different reactions in the same substances. That's called "science."

For example, ice melts under pressure and refreezes when the pressure is removed. Water will turn to vapor under pressure at temperatures well below boiling, and water vapor turns to liquid at temperatures well above freezing.

Why is this important here? Venus' atmosphere is tremendously heavy. 90 Atmospheres worth of pressure. Nearly 100 times the pressure of Earth's atmosphere at sea level. A human being is crushed at less than a third of that. Pressure equals heat. I've also read about what they call "absorption bands" around Venus which they don't really seem to know a lot about, other than the fact that they absorb huge amounts of UV rays. It sounds like it may be similar to the hole in the ozone layer we incessantly heard fear mongering about in the 80s and 90s. (what happened to that? It was supposed to kill us all long ago? Hmmm...) So Venus has a lot going on beyond 96% of its atmosphere being CO2 (which, by the way CO2 only makes up 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere... that's slightly less than Venus' 96% and really makes your argument somewhat silly. The human body needs water, but we are highly susceptible to drowning.)

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy



Research for it's own sake can lead you to many wonderful places.

I agree.

I wish others would follow suit.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Greven

It's funny, different proportions and pressures cause different reactions in the same substances. That's called "science."

For example, ice melts under pressure and refreezes when the pressure is removed. Water will turn to vapor under pressure at temperatures well below boiling, and water vapor turns to liquid at temperatures well above freezing.

Why is this important here? Venus' atmosphere is tremendously heavy. 90 Atmospheres worth of pressure. Nearly 100 times the pressure of Earth's atmosphere at sea level. A human being is crushed at less than a third of that. Pressure equals heat. I've also read about what they call "absorption bands" around Venus which they don't really seem to know a lot about, other than the fact that they absorb huge amounts of UV rays. It sounds like it may be similar to the hole in the ozone layer we incessantly heard fear mongering about in the 80s and 90s. (what happened to that? It was supposed to kill us all long ago? Hmmm...) So Venus has a lot going on beyond 96% of its atmosphere being CO2 (which, by the way CO2 only makes up 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere... that's slightly less than Venus' 96% and really makes your argument somewhat silly. The human body needs water, but we are highly susceptible to drowning.)

Heat from pressure would decay over the millennia; otherwise it would be a perpetual motion machine. You need a better understanding of how things work.

Also, you didn't answer why is Mars warmer than an airless planet, with its thin atmosphere composed almost entirely of CO2.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm interested in variance studies between equipment used 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 10 years ago and how it correlates with equipment used now.

Time of day of observations. Instrumentation bias. That sort of thing. Yeah, I wonder if it's been considered.

If you're asking those question, you have not tried. Your confirmation bias won't allow it.