Hottest Year Ever????

[dogtowner]

I find it amazing that you boys can gin up these volumes of prose so consistantly.
That's a lot of typing. Just b remarkable really.

 

[Lagboltz]

I find it amazing that you boys can gin up these volumes of prose so consistantly.
That's a lot of typing. Just b remarkable really.

LOL. Yes, it is remarkable. I'm just having fun feeding my pen pal the troll.

 

[dogtowner]

LOL. Yes, it is remarkable. I'm just having fun feeding my pen pal the troll.

Obviously. Lot of work just for the heck of it.

 

[Lagboltz]

Obviously. Lot of work just for the heck of it.

Not for the heck of it. He is spreading a plethora of pseudo-science that is flat wrong. I am trying to show the correct side of science so that gullible people won't swallow his version of it. If people don't want to believe AGW, I really don't care. But they should disbelieve for the right reasons, and not because a troll thinks that certain things violate the laws physics.

 

[palerider]

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

We both know that what I am saying is that you can't provide any credible data to support yours...data with a margin of error greater than the claimed increase is hardly credible and that is all you can provide claiming a present rise of 3mm per year.

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....never happened. A resonance radio freqency hit that telescope...CMB never got close. And it is looking like that whole leftover from the big bang is dying out anyway...the big bang itself is fading as a viable theory...just one more thing that was 'well known" in science till it wasn't.

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.

Again... falsity on your part. Physics for the hard sciences don't teach back radiation...only physics for the soft sciences like climate science teach such a thing. Im traveling this weekend but when I get back I will provide you with a list of physics texts and whether or not they teach back radiation. Physics for the hard sciences doesn't.

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.

I said many times that QM is rife with contradictions and far more questions than it answers...If QM survives for the next 100 years, what exists then will be profoundly different from what is presented as QM now.

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.

Must suck to be reduced to calling someone a troll because everything you say is pointed out to be untrue. That is the problem with operating from a position of faith and ignorance rather than fact.....your belief that CMB....thermal radiation....was actually measured with a radio telescope is a prime example.

 

[palerider]

Not for the heck of it. He is spreading a plethora of pseudo-science that is flat wrong. I am trying to show the correct side of science so that gullible people won't swallow his version of it. If people don't want to believe AGW, I really don't care. But they should disbelieve for the right reasons, and not because a troll thinks that certain things violate the laws physics.

Sorry guy...you are the purveyor of pseudoscience. Someone out there may actually believe your claim that CMB...thermal radiation was actually measured with a radio telescope...or that energy actually can move from cool objects to warm. People of great faith routinely lead the ignorant astray and clearly your faith is strong.

 

[Lagboltz]

We both know that what I am saying is that you can't provide any credible data to support yours...data with a margin of error greater than the claimed increase is hardly credible and that is all you can provide claiming a present rise of 3mm per year.

Here is my credible source that shows a 3.2 mm / yr sea level rise. Now it's your turn to attempt to find a credible source that shows that my source is not credible.

Sorry guy....never happened. A resonance radio freqency hit that telescope...CMB never got close. And it is looking like that whole leftover from the big bang is dying out anyway...the big bang itself is fading as a viable theory...just one more thing that was 'well known" in science till it wasn't.

There is no resonance involved in the measurement of the CMB until after the radiation hits the telescope dish and is reflected to the resonant amplifier. That is very obvious.

I said many times that QM is rife with contradictions and far more questions than it answers...If QM survives for the next 100 years, what exists then will be profoundly different from what is presented as QM now.

It is up to you to find a reference that shows what aspect of quantum mechanics is questionable in the following statements which show that radiation can be absorbed and emitted by the same body:

This is what Max Planck said in 1914.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf

Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Pages 49-50: When any emitting and absorbing bodies are in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium, the part of the energy of definite wavelength emitted by a body A, which is absorbed by another body B, is equal to the part of the energy of the same wavelength emitted by B which is absorbed by A.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

Albert Einstein in 1916: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

Must suck to be reduced to calling someone a troll because everything you say is pointed out to be untrue. That is the problem with operating from a position of faith and ignorance rather than fact.....your belief that CMB....thermal radiation....was actually measured with a radio telescope is a prime example.

It's not just my belief. The entire body of physicists agree a definitive measurement of the very cold thermal cosmic microwave background was measured by a radio telescope.

• 1965: Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discover the 3 K cosmic microwave background radiation. Through the connection of Bernie Burke, Robert Dicke, James Peebles, Roll, and Wilkinson learn of and interpret the measurement.
  
  1966: Rainer Sachs and Arthur Wolfe theoretically predict microwave background fluctuation amplitudes created by gravitational potential variations between observers and the last scattering surface
  
  1990: The COBE satellite shows that the microwave background has a nearly perfect blackbody spectrum and thereby strongly supporting the hot big bang model, the thermal history of the Universe and constrains the density of the intergalactic medium
  
  1992: The COBE satellite discovers anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background, this strongly supports the big bang model with gravitational instability as the source of large scale structure. This discovery energizes and motivates the field in both theory and experiment leading to an explosion of activity.
  
  

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

Gagging on Gaia

Climatology is minor-league science staffed by Eco-Eunuchs jealous of creative scientists. So the inhibited little wimps are driven to claim that all the inventions of the last 300 years have done nothing but destroy Mother Earth.

Narrow-minded conformist nerds are social misfits. Their loneliness drives them to join cults like this. Their wimpiness makes them desire to be manly superheroes out to save the world.

 

[PLC1]

Scientists tried to redo 38 climate change-denying studies and discovered some major flaws

So, a team of seven climate scientists and meteorologists decided to give climate contrarians the benefit of the doubt, picked half of their more popular studies, and tried to redo them. (The hallmark of a good scientific paper is that it's reproducible, meaning another scientist can do the same experiment and get the same or similar results.)


What happened? Beyond being unable to replicate most of the results, the team discovered major flaws in the papers. In fact, many papers left out essential data, and some even ignored basic physics.

But, of course, anyone posting anonymously on an internet forum can easily refute NOAA, NASA, CERN et al.

 

[dogtowner]

Scientists tried to redo 38 climate change-denying studies and discovered some major flaws



But, of course, anyone posting anonymously on an internet forum can easily refute NOAA, NASA, CERN et al.

CERN is not on board they have put themselves on the sidelines. They did demonstrate the effect of solar activity though. Used scientific method to do it.

 

[PLC1]

CERN is not on board they have put themselves on the sidelines. They did demonstrate the effect of solar activity though. Used scientific method to do it.

CERN is not on board with AGW? Really? When did that happen?

 

[Lagboltz]

CERN is not on board they have put themselves on the sidelines. They did demonstrate the effect of solar activity though. Used scientific method to do it.

"The research, ... comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, ... involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities

... 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes ... demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds,..."
​

It's really quite a stretch saying that CERN is not on board with AGW. 63 scientists out of 8,000 from CERN published the paper. That's just 0.8%. I wouldn't say that they represent CERN.

 

[dogtowner]

"The research, ... comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, ... involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities

... 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes ... demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds,..."
​

It's really quite a stretch saying that CERN is not on board with AGW. 63 scientists out of 8,000 from CERN published the paper. That's just 0.8%. I wouldn't say that they represent CERN.

Unlike those in the 97 % the CERN guys who whose expertise lies in other sciences didn't offer comment.
Other than the project you note they have not commented. In fact they specifically noted that this project was not to be viewed as aNY thing apart from specifically the study. No comment in other words.

 

[palerider]

Cooling cycle? You must be reading different publications than I am. Who says that?

I am going to ask that you put your unbiased science hat on for just a few minutes and try some actual critical thinking if such a thing is possible for your sort.

Suppose you had the wherewithall to install a state of the art, triple redundant, temperature sensing network across an entire continent. A network where each sensor was so pristinely placed that no adjustment whatsoever was needed to assure that the temperatures across the coverage area was accurate.

Now you run your network for a decade or so and the data are showing something entirely different from the standard temperature data bases that we are all familiar with. GISS, HadCrut...etc. The standard networks which require adjustment show a pause which is then adjusted to a slight warming trend across the globe including the area covered by your state of the art pristinely placed network. The land mass covered by your network is shown by the standard networks to be experiencing the same temperature movements as the rest of the globe.

But when you look at the data from your state of the art, triple redundant, pristinely placed network which requires absolutely no adjustment and which is checked regularly to assure each component is operating properly, you see a cooling trend.....a significant cooling trend. So the area covered by your network is experiencing a cooling trend while the standard networks which apparently require quite a bit of adjustment are showing a warming trend for the same area.

Here is where the science hat and critical thinking come in. Do you think it is reasonable to consider that if your state of the art, triple redundant, pristinely placed network which requires no adjustment were extended across the globe that it might show the same sort of cooling trend across the entire globe when you consider the fact that the land mass covered by your network doesn't show any deviation from the temperature the other networks are showing globally? Is it reasonable to consider that since the continent covered by your network is showing a considerable cooling trend according to your network and the standard networks are showing a warming trend that perhaps all those adjustments worldwide are introducing a specious warming trend which, in fact, does not exist?

If you possessed such a state of the art network and the data showing that there is, in fact, a cooling trend across the continent that it covered...what would you do with that data?

 

[Lagboltz]

I am going to ask that you put your unbiased science hat on for just a few minutes and try some actual critical thinking if such a thing is possible for your sort.

Suppose you had the wherewithall to install a state of the art, triple redundant, temperature sensing network across an entire continent. A network where each sensor was so pristinely placed that no adjustment whatsoever was needed to assure that the temperatures across the coverage area was accurate.

Now you run your network for a decade or so and the data are showing something entirely different from the standard temperature data bases that we are all familiar with. GISS, HadCrut...etc. The standard networks which require adjustment show a pause which is then adjusted to a slight warming trend across the globe including the area covered by your state of the art pristinely placed network. The land mass covered by your network is shown by the standard networks to be experiencing the same temperature movements as the rest of the globe.

But when you look at the data from your state of the art, triple redundant, pristinely placed network which requires absolutely no adjustment and which is checked regularly to assure each component is operating properly, you see a cooling trend.....a significant cooling trend. So the area covered by your network is experiencing a cooling trend while the standard networks which apparently require quite a bit of adjustment are showing a warming trend for the same area.

Here is where the science hat and critical thinking come in. Do you think it is reasonable to consider that if your state of the art, triple redundant, pristinely placed network which requires no adjustment were extended across the globe that it might show the same sort of cooling trend across the entire globe when you consider the fact that the land mass covered by your network doesn't show any deviation from the temperature the other networks are showing globally? Is it reasonable to consider that since the continent covered by your network is showing a considerable cooling trend according to your network and the standard networks are showing a warming trend that perhaps all those adjustments worldwide are introducing a specious warming trend which, in fact, does not exist?

If you possessed such a state of the art network and the data showing that there is, in fact, a cooling trend across the continent that it covered...what would you do with that data?

Do you think the earth is a cooling cycle? If so, where did you read that?