Hottest Year Ever????

[dogtowner]

That whole thing came from a paper at the National Astronomy Meeting. Valentina Zharkova has a model of solar activity and said that predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s. I have no idea about what other scientists think about the integrity of her model.

It's ironic that the same people who criticize climate models would take stock in another model. As I said before, I'm not going to have an opinion about climate for another 20 years.

That was not intended to represent the sole other idea, just a recent one. Saw another involving a cooler Atlantic being responsible for the relative lack of hurricanes.
As to the solar activity idea, that model conforms to known and measurable data. Phil Jones had to manufacture his data to make his model work.

 

[PLC1]

A recent article.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/scientists_warning_of_global_cooling_once_again.html

A couple Russians made a little stir by offering a 10,000 dollar bet that things would cool rather than warm some years back. Still no takers.

Some years back?
Seems it would have been an easy ten grand.

 

[dogtowner]

Some years back?
Seems it would have been an easy ten grand.

And yet no takers.
And oddly enough it stopped getting warmer when such an outcome was impossible.

 

[PLC1]

And yet no takers.
And oddly enough it stopped getting warmer when such an outcome was impossible.

Probably because they advertised in the WND, bastion of the anti science crowd.

 

[palerider]

I agree the sea level was increasing around 1.7 mm/yr last century. According to data you, yourself, posted, the sea level is now rising over 3 mm/yr this century.

Try actually looking at the data instead of the preprepared pap you eat on a daily basis....the error bars for the claim of 3mm per year are multiple times larger than the claimed increase....one could just as easily, and justifiably say that sea level is dropping at a rate of .35 mm year...but then that would be science and you guys don't do science do you...it's all propaganda all the time with you guys..

Here is another example of radiation energy spontaneously moving form a cold to a warm substance.

“The cosmic ray background (CRB) was discovered with a radio telescope. The CRB is a cold 2.725 deg K. Radio telescopes are at ambient outdoor temperatures, averaging 15 deg C. The very cold radiation from the CRB must strike the much warmer parabola dish in order for it to reflect to a detector at the focal point.

More evidence of the fact that you don't have a clue...the discovery of CMB was made with a radio telescope via resonance frequencies, extreme amplification, and mathematical models....if one wants to actually measure CMB...one would need a sensor cooled to a temperature lower than the CMB itself.

 

[palerider]

Probably because they advertised in the WND, bastion of the anti science crowd.

Alas, I am afraid that it is you and yours who are the true anti science crowd....the true deniers. Your side of the debate became anti science as soon as the claim that the science was settled was made...no more anti science attitude could possibly be expressed....especially considering that climate science is only in its infancy and at this point doesn't even know what it doesn't know.

 

[Lagboltz]

Try actually looking at the data instead of the preprepared pap you eat on a daily basis....the error bars for the claim of 3mm per year are multiple times larger than the claimed increase....one could just as easily, and justifiably say that sea level is dropping at a rate of .35 mm year...but then that would be science and you guys don't do science do you...it's all propaganda all the time with you guys..

The “pap” that shows a 3mm rise in sea levels this century came from a graph you posted. Do you want me to show it to you again? It is well within statistical significance. If you think the level is dropping, show me a graph that illustrates the global sea level dropping in this century.

More evidence of the fact that you don't have a clue...the discovery of CMB was made with a radio telescope via resonance frequencies, extreme amplification, and mathematical models....if one wants to actually measure CMB...one would need a sensor cooled to a temperature lower than the CMB itself.

Of course the CMB was measured with a radio telescope with extreme amplification and well-proven black body radiation theory. You can't deny that the very cold radiation from the universe had to hit a metal parabolic dish at an out-door temperature to get to the point where it could be amplified and modeled.

That is a clear measurable, reproducible example of cold radiation hitting a body hundreds of degrees warmer.

 

[palerider]

The “pap” that shows a 3mm rise in sea levels this century came from a graph you posted. Do you want me to show it to you again? It is well within statistical significance. If you think the level is dropping, show me a graph that illustrates the global sea level dropping in this century

You have stupid down pat, don't you? The 3mm is for the past century...the present rate is 1.7mm....NASA still says 3.. but the error bars are several times larger than the claimed rate of rise...To bad we don't have a crayon feature on this board so I could draw you a picture...oh..you had a picture and still didn't get it..never mind.

Of course the CMB was measured with a radio telescope with extreme amplification and well-proven black body radiation theory. You can't deny that the very cold radiation from the universe had to hit a metal parabolic dish at an out-door temperature to get to the point where it could be amplified and modeled.

No idea what a resonance frequency is? The discovery of CMB had nothing to do with the radiation actually being absorbed...or even touching the radio dish...

The detector of the radio telescope tunes in various resonance frequencies of the antenna which produce electrical signals...which is then amplified into a recording frequency over the radio spectrum... that recorded radio frequency is then matched with a black body spectrum using Planck's law, where the peak of the recorded radio spectrum is used to determine the temperature by which a radiance can then be computed using Planck's law. The recorded spectrum is translated using Planck's into a radiance represented in W/m2 which is only perceived as a faint glow....

The actual CMB can only be detected, or measured with an instrument cooled to less than 2.75K.

That is a clear measurable, reproducible example of cold radiation hitting a body hundreds of degrees warmer.

Cold radio frequencies?? Is that your claim? For someone who fancies himself the smartest guy in the room, you sure come across as a doofus...

 

[Lagboltz]

You have stupid down pat, don't you? The 3mm is for the past century...the present rate is 1.7mm....NASA still says 3.. but the error bars are several times larger than the claimed rate of rise...To bad we don't have a crayon feature on this board so I could draw you a picture...oh..you had a picture and still didn't get it..never mind.

The troll is back. I get to feed the troll. You have it backwards and you know it. That sort of lie shows you are a troll.

You can't replace logical discourse with your deep-seated bitterness. Just show me a graph that illustrates the global sea level dropping in this century.

The discovery of CMB had nothing to do with the radiation actually being absorbed...or even touching the radio dish...

That is totally false and silly. They used a radio telescope because it had a focusing dish. The radiation from the cold background must hit the warmer dish to reflect to the detector which isn't even facing the sky.

The detector of the radio telescope tunes in various resonance frequencies of the antenna which produce electrical signals...which is then amplified into a recording frequency over the radio spectrum... that recorded radio frequency is then matched with a black body spectrum using Planck's law, where the peak of the recorded radio spectrum is used to determine the temperature by which a radiance can then be computed using Planck's law. The recorded spectrum is translated using Planck's into a radiance represented in W/m2 which is only perceived as a faint glow....

That, for a change, is true.

Cold radio frequencies?? Is that your claim? For someone who fancies himself the smartest guy in the room, you sure come across as a doofus...

Don't try to put words in my mouth. Your “cold radio frequencies” again is totally silly. There is no such thing as “cold frequencies” you are confusing that with the radiation coming from a cold source.

The very cold radiation from the universe had to hit and reflect from a metal parabolic dish at a much warmer out-door temperature in order to reach the detector. To deny such a simple operation of a radio telescope is totally silly. To continue to deny things that are so obvious is the makings of a troll.

Again, that is a clear measurable, reproducible example of cold radiation hitting a body hundreds of degrees warmer.

 

[palerider]

The troll is back. I get to feed the troll. You have it backwards and you know it. That sort of lie shows you are a troll.

The fact that you think I have it backwards is evidence that you don't have a clue.

You can't replace logical discourse with your deep-seated bitterness. Just show me a graph that illustrates the global sea level dropping in this century.

Already did...sorry you can't read a graph.

That is totally false and silly. They used a radio telescope because it had a focusing dish. The radiation from the cold background must hit the warmer dish to reflect to the detector which isn't even facing the sky.

Sorry guy, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. And again, what the telescope picked up was a resonance radio frequency...not CMB radiation....the temperature of the resonance radiation frequency was the product of a mathematical formula...if you want to actually measure CMB..you need an instrument cooled to below 2.75K

That, for a change, is true.

The fact that you can grasp that is true and still believe that actual CMB was measured by an instrument not cooled to 2.75K illustrates how far out you are.

Don't try to put words in my mouth. Your “cold radio frequencies” again is totally silly. There is no such thing as “cold frequencies” you are confusing that with the radiation coming from a cold source.

Only repeating what you said...the receiver only picks up radio frequencies...

The very cold radiation from the universe had to hit and reflect from a metal parabolic dish at a much warmer out-door temperature in order to reach the detector.

To deny such a simple operation of a radio telescope is totally silly. To continue to deny things that are so obvious is the makings of a troll.

Sorry....the only thing that hit the radio dish was radio waves....the rest was the product of math.

Again, that is a clear measurable, reproducible example of cold radiation hitting a body hundreds of degrees warmer.

Cold radio frequencies again? How silly can you get...the only thing that dish picked up was a radio signal...Sorry this is all so difficult for you to understand...or perhaps you do but just can't bring yourself to acknowledge that you were wrong...being the smartest guy in the room and all.

 

[Lagboltz]

The fact that you think I have it backwards is evidence that you don't have a clue.

Already did...sorry you can't read a graph.

Making insults is not a substitute for an argument. It only shows that you are a troll and only resort to your venom because you have no other choice. Try and cool off and give me credible references for your (mistaken) belief that the sea level is falling this century.

Sorry guy, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. And again, what the telescope picked up was a resonance radio frequency...not CMB radiation....the temperature of the resonance radiation frequency was the product of a mathematical formula...if you want to actually measure CMB..you need an instrument cooled to below 2.75K

You are almost correct. What happens is that all frequencies of the radiation from the cold background strikes the dish and is reflected to focus on a detector. It is the detector itself that is is tuned to a series of frequencies that give data used to compute the temperature. What you say, “the temperature of the resonance radio frequency” is physical nonsense. Temperature is measured in degrees C, frequencies can be characterized by mm wavelengths. There is no such thing as a temperature of a radio frequency. You misunderstand those concepts.

Only repeating what you said...the receiver only picks up radio frequencies...

Sorry....the only thing that hit the radio dish was radio waves....the rest was the product of math.

Exactly! The cosmic microwave background radiation strikes the dish. The temperature of that CMB black body radiation is mathematically constructed from the intensity of the various frequencies tuned in by the detector. You got it.

How silly can you get...the only thing that dish picked up was a radio signal...Sorry this is all so difficult for you to understand...or perhaps you do but just can't bring yourself to acknowledge that you were wrong...being the smartest guy in the room and all.

Why is that silly? It is well-known that thermal radiation in the mm wavelengths (very cold) strikes the dish.

Again, that is a clear measurable, reproducible example of cold radiation hitting a body hundreds of degrees warmer.

 

[PLC1]

Alas, I am afraid that it is you and yours who are the true anti science crowd....the true deniers. Your side of the debate became anti science as soon as the claim that the science was settled was made...no more anti science attitude could possibly be expressed....especially considering that climate science is only in its infancy and at this point doesn't even know what it doesn't know.

and yet you dismiss NASA because they're telling you something you don't want to believe.

 

[palerider]

and yet you dismiss NASA because they're telling you something you don't want to believe.

No...I dismiss NASA because what they are telling me does not jibe with actual observations....both on the sea level front and the surface temperature front. They are manipulating data to present a false narrative. They are claiming a 3mm per year sea level increase with a margin of error that is multiple times larger than the claimed sea level rise. Sorry you can't understand what that means. When they start presenting data that actually jibes with observations and continue doing so for a while, then, and only then will their credibility begin to be restored.

 

[palerider]

Making insults is not a substitute for an argument. It only shows that you are a troll and only resort to your venom because you have no other choice. Try and cool off and give me credible references for your (mistaken) belief that the sea level is falling this century.

Sorry guy, but I am afraid that it is you who has the onus upon him to provide credible references....claims of a 3mm per year sea level increase with a margin of error that is multiple time larger than the claim are not credible...that sort of claim is called propaganda...not science.

You are almost correct. What happens is that all frequencies of the radiation from the cold background strikes the dish and is reflected to focus on a detector. It is the detector itself that is is tuned to a series of frequencies that give data used to compute the temperature. What you say, “the temperature of the resonance radio frequency” is physical nonsense. Temperature is measured in degrees C, frequencies can be characterized by mm wavelengths. There is no such thing as a temperature of a radio frequency. You misunderstand those concepts.

Alas, faith won't make it so. The only IR radiation that is striking that dish is that which is warmer than the dish...energy only moving from warm to cool and all that. If the energy from the cooler source were actually able to make itself known by striking a collector not cooled to 2.75 K...you would read about it and present that as evidence for your claims rather than try to claim that an artificially amplified resonance radio frequency actually equals energy from a cool source moving to a warmer source. Don't feel bad, climate scientists routinely fool themselves with instruments.... It is, I suspect, because climate science being a soft science doesn't provide the necessary education for them to actually understand what the instruments they use are measuring and what they are fabricating via mathematical formulae.

I once had a guy with an actual degree in climatology (whatever that may be) try his best to argue that his IR thermometer was counting photons....imagine, an instrument actually counting theoretical particles...and the sad thing is that I believe he actually believed it. Counting photons...that is at least as silly as believing reception of a resonant radio signal and amplifying it to the extreme, and then running that through several equations is the same as actually receiving IR radiation.

Exactly! The cosmic microwave background radiation strikes the dish. The temperature of that CMB black body radiation is mathematically constructed from the intensity of the various frequencies tuned in by the detector. You got it.

Sorry guy, CMB is thermal radiation...The radio dish only receives radio signals. I know that you wish with all your heart that it were true...you wish it so fervently that you are apparently willing to drag your intellect through miles of sewage clogged gutters in an effort to make it so...alas it won't. Radio telescopes do not measure thermal radiation. Detecting a thermal signal via resonance frequencies is a mathematical trick....not actual measurement of thermal radiation.

Why is that silly? It is well-known that thermal radiation in the mm wavelengths (very cold) strikes the dish.

It was also well know that the earth was flat...and that tectonic plate theory was hogwash...and that stress caused stomach ulcers. Lots of things have been well known...till they weren't.

Again, that is a clear measurable, reproducible example of cold radiation hitting a body hundreds of degrees warmer.

What it is ...is clear measurable, reproducible example of climate science fooling itself, and warmer wackos with instrumentation that they don't fully understand. When CMB was first discovered, physicists didn't rush out claiming that this was an example of energy moving from cool to warm...because actual physics texts don't make the claim that such things happen. It was climate science which made the idiotic leap to claiming that CMB was evidence of back radiation....a non physical, non existent, unobservable, unmeasurable false phenomenon.

 

[Lagboltz]

Sorry guy, but I am afraid that it is you who has the onus upon him to provide credible references....claims of a 3mm per year sea level increase with a margin of error that is multiple time larger than the claim are not credible...that sort of claim is called propaganda...not science.

What you are saying is that you couldn't find data to support your claim.

Alas, faith won't make it so. The only IR radiation that is striking that dish is that which is warmer than the dish...energy only moving from warm to cool and all that. If the energy from the cooler source were actually able to make itself known by striking a collector not cooled to 2.75 K...you would read about it and present that as evidence for your claims rather than try to claim that an artificially amplified resonance radio frequency actually equals energy from a cool source moving to a warmer source. Don't feel bad, climate scientists routinely fool themselves with instruments.... It is, I suspect, because climate science being a soft science doesn't provide the necessary education for them to actually understand what the instruments they use are measuring and what they are fabricating via mathematical formulae.

What are you thinking? Climate science has nothing to do with the CMB, nor vice versa. Contrary to what you think, we did read about the discovery of cold cosmic background hitting a warmer radio telescope. In fact In 1978, Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics for their joint discovery of the CMB.

Sorry guy, CMB is thermal radiation...The radio dish only receives radio signals. I know that you wish with all your heart that it were true...you wish it so fervently that you are apparently willing to drag your intellect through miles of sewage clogged gutters in an effort to make it so...alas it won't.

I see Mr Troll that you are still resorting to insults to try to make a point. You are actually not insulting me. You are insulting yourself by insulting all of science. And trying to make me take it personally? Fat chance. I'm just the messenger.

What it is ...is clear measurable, reproducible example of climate science fooling itself, and warmer wackos with instrumentation that they don't fully understand. When CMB was first discovered, physicists didn't rush out claiming that this was an example of energy moving from cool to warm...because actual physics texts don't make the claim that such things happen. It was climate science which made the idiotic leap to claiming that CMB was evidence of back radiation....a non physical, non existent, unobservable, unmeasurable false phenomenon.

More insults I see. Of course physicists didn't rush out to claim an example of energy exchange between cool and warm objects. That was known early last century. Today it's ho-hum science. You are well over 100 years behind the science of physics.

You said many times that you firmly believe that modern science and quantum mechanics is fantasy land. Yet you keep being a troll and try to promote concepts that are totally fantasy land. Really palerider, you are being a full fledged troll. Sort of like goofs that get on a soap box and try to argue that the earth is flat just for fun.

Internet Troll: An internet troll is a one using anonymity to attempt to cause, anger, impatience or generally to be disruptive for no seemingly good reason except simply to be a nuisance.

That definition fits you perfectly.