2014 was definitely the hottest year on record

[ginjawarrior]

The day the Global Warming people address the concerns of the locations of their critical data sources, like runway ends, AC exhaust ports, and other strategic so called easy to access locations,....is the day they might start getting respect. Running from it shows nothing but their true cash hungry colors.

Is there a way to get the warming people to address accusation made against them ? The answer of we`re right you`re wrong that`s it wont do. The remain silent routine is a show of guilt.

They do both.

Start here for above accusation
http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-intermediate.htm

Any other accusations you can think of will be covered here.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Now if you're really serious about showing how the science is wrong then you'll need to write a good quality paper on it and have it peer reviewed by a good quality journal.

 

[OddBall1st]

Start here for above accusation
http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-intermediate.htm

Any other accusations you can think of will be covered here.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Now if you're really serious about showing how the science is wrong then you'll need to write a good quality paper on it and have it peer reviewed by a good quality journal.

or just be right.

give me a chance to read now.

 

[Harrekin]

Start here for above accusation
http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-intermediate.htm

Any other accusations you can think of will be covered here.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Now if you're really serious about showing how the science is wrong then you'll need to write a good quality paper on it and have it peer reviewed by a good quality journal.

Translating:

"The world isn't round you fucking noob, all the books say it's FLAT".

 

[OddBall1st]

Start here for above accusation
http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-intermediate.htm

Any other accusations you can think of will be covered here.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Now if you're really serious about showing how the science is wrong then you'll need to write a good quality paper on it and have it peer reviewed by a good quality journal.

Ok, they include those stations in the data and it makes small impact if at all with other data and those station excluded explains their drive but not what I ask. I ask, Why even turn the first screw and put it there at all ? They know it`s flawed.

Then, back in 08 when Philippe asks Wondering Aloud if he is certain that surface terms raising more than atmosphere is ok to ignore, Wondering Aloud replies yes 100% because it would violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Right off the bat,.... if the atmosphere is preventing heat loss, than it will increase on the surface like an oven and entropy laws of thermodynamics are nullified and therefore can`t be used to say with any, let alone 100% certainty that it is the explanation to defend the question asked about surface temps being warmer than atmosphere are ok to ignore or that he was right.

Second, if the first law of thermodynamics works of matter cant be created or destroyed, ...I didn`t go too far into Fusion but left knowing it creates a new Element after destroying (however small) another.

How does increased entropy laws explain a melting snowball ? It would seem it`s surrounding air would not have to change(ex. 35 degrees) to continue the process of the snowball surface warming to melt ?

Another poster said that answering with,.. "numerous studies have shown", without links is a lot sloppy.

Things like this bug me.

Maybe the laws of thermodynamics needs another looking at.

 

[OddBall1st]

Oh, and the cosmic chicken egg and the cosmic chicken are both chicken so the chicken came first, anyway you look at it.

 

[Harrekin]

Ok, they include those stations in the data and it makes small impact if at all with other data and those station excluded explains their drive but not what I ask. I ask, Why even turn the first screw and put it there at all ? They know it`s flawed.

Then, back in 08 when Philippe asks Wondering Aloud if he is certain that surface terms raising more than atmosphere is ok to ignore, Wondering Aloud replies yes 100% because it would violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Right off the bat,.... if the atmosphere is preventing heat loss, than it will increase on the surface like an oven and entropy laws of thermodynamics are nullified and therefore can`t be used to say with any, let alone 100% certainty that it is the explanation to defend the question asked about surface temps being warmer than atmosphere are ok to ignore or that he was right.

Second, if the first law of thermodynamics works of matter cant be created or destroyed, ...I didn`t go too far into Fusion but left knowing it creates a new Element after destroying (however small) another.

How does increased entropy laws explain a melting snowball ? It would seem it`s surrounding air would not have to change(ex. 35 degrees) to continue the process of the snowball surface warming to melt ?

Another poster said that answering with,.. "numerous studies have shown", without links is a lot sloppy.

Things like this bug me.

Maybe the laws of thermodynamics needs another looking at.

Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems...

The Earth is not a closed system.

 

[OddBall1st]

It was labeled a chicken egg because it produced a chicken and the chicken lays chicken eggs.

 

[OddBall1st]

Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems...

The Earth is not a closed system.

So the atmosphere is free to leave if it ignores gravity ? Heat only rises in gravity, not so out there. the earth is a closed system with exhaust ports, like your cars motor.

 

[Harrekin]

So the atmosphere is free to leave if it ignores gravity ? Heat only rises in gravity, not so out there. the earth is a closed system with exhaust ports, like your cars motor.

Heat doesn't only dissipate by convection, it dissipates by radiation too...

Otherwise the Earth would be an ice planet.

 

[Bugeye]

is that the same bob tisdale who runs a climate denier website?

LOL!

you are fucking dumb.

You deny the RSS and UAH data sets from the satellites NASA put up in favor of surface data sets? LOL!

 

[OddBall1st]

Heat doesn't only dissipate by convection, it dissipates by radiation too...

Otherwise the Earth would be an ice planet.

Gotcha ,

But I was more speaking about the vessels in the atmosphere that manipulate heat that`s supposed to radiate. Say as in will absorb heat slowly or not at all. I always understood that when an object radiates it`s heat, the heat dissipates and without replenishment, the object cools. The one thing I know in the atmosphere that holds heat, radiates heat, absorbs heat and reflects heat is water, two gasses that got married. Maybe there is another ?

 

[UncleBuck]

You deny the RSS and UAH data sets from the satellites NASA put up in favor of surface data sets? LOL!

you cited bob tisdale. that tells me how fucking dumb you are. incredibly dumb.

he is huckster and you are fucking dumb.

 

[Bugeye]

you cited bob tisdale. that tells me how fucking dumb you are. incredibly dumb.

he is huckster and you are fucking dumb.

So you will accept RSS/UAH data or not? Who gives a shit who plots it?

 

[UncleBuck]

Who gives a shit who plots it?

when you have someone as dishonest and incompetent as bob tisdale plotting it, the same bob tisdale who runs a climate denial website, anyone who is a decent consumer of information is gonna wanna see it done by someone else.

but not you.

a lying, biased, douchebag is good enough for you.

iLOL

 

[Bugeye]

when you have someone as dishonest and incompetent as bob tisdale plotting it, the same bob tisdale who runs a climate denial website, anyone who is a decent consumer of information is gonna wanna see it done by someone else.

but not you.

a lying, biased, douchebag is good enough for you.

iLOL

RSS/UAH data? You accept it is real and originates from NASA satellites?

 

[UncleBuck]

RSS/UAH data? You accept it is real and originates from NASA satellites?

maybe someone who is not a douchebag can graph it. LOL

 

[Harrekin]

Gotcha ,

But I was more speaking about the vessels in the atmosphere that manipulate heat that`s supposed to radiate. Say as in will absorb heat slowly or not at all. I always understood that when an object radiates it`s heat, the heat dissipates and without replenishment, the object cools. The one thing I know in the atmosphere that holds heat, radiates heat, absorbs heat and reflects heat is water, two gasses that got married. Maybe there is another ?

There are many things that can insulate the atmosphere, CO2 being one of the weakest and least harmful.

Water vapour, methane, etc are all far worse than CO2 but guess what?

You can't be fined for those.

 

[Padawanbater2]

There are many things that can insulate the atmosphere, CO2 being one of the weakest and least harmful.

Water vapour, methane, etc are all far worse than CO2 but guess what?

You can't be fined for those.

If water vapour or methane were being emitted as pollutants by corporations at levels affecting human health or climate, they would be regulated just like CO2

Pretty poor argument

 

[Harrekin]

If water vapour or methane were being emitted as pollutants by corporations at levels affecting human health or climate, they would be regulated just like CO2

Pretty poor argument

Lol, yeah, let's regulate farts and evaporation.

Instead of something smart like encouraging new battery technology or building more experimental fusion reactors, let's try micromanage people lives.

Let me ask you, if we could make all carbon based fuels disappear tomorrow, do you think humanity would survive?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Lol, yeah, let's regulate farts and evaporation.

Instead of something smart like encouraging new battery technology or building more experimental fusion reactors, let's try micromanage people lives.

Let me ask you, if we could make all carbon based fuels disappear tomorrow, do you think humanity would survive?

Why can't you encourage innovation while tackling part of the problem at the same time? A huge part of the problem is CO2 emissions, until we handle that no amount of new batteries will make much of a difference.

Of course humanity would survive. The consensus if we don't is much worse