It's the Sun, Stupid.
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
I know there is no such thing.
The article was a joke....didn't you get that or do you believe the earth is flat?
Would you like me to put you on ignore or not?
Please don't do that. You need reason and light in your life just as much I needed laughter in mine.
It's called convection. It's the same thing that keeps a glider up in the air for extended periods of time.
So, do you have an answer for how they can rank todays Greenland temperature using the GISP2 data, when there is no station at 72 degrees 36 minutes N, 38 degrees 30 minutes W, and when the resolution of the ice core data only allows the time series to extend to 95 years before present? The nearest weather station has temperatures far in excess of -32 degrees K.
You just don't learn, slow beaver. Make a fire without any walls around it. Then add concrete blocks so as to encircle the fire. The blocks are colder than the fire, but the addition of the blocks will impede the radiation of energy away from the fire, which will make the core temperature in the fire hotter.
Maybe you can explain precisely what property of the laws of thermodynamics you think is being defied. Industry defies it every day then, with kilns and other ovens/smelting processes.
It would be impossible for heat to flow from cold to hot objects in contact with one another. But radiation isn't objects in contect with one another. Different physics.
Yukon. You'd best put Tonnington on your 'ignore list' because he is educated and I see that that won't really go over with you as you cannot refute him, unless you go get a masters or at least act like you might have one and do some research not including what Faux Spews. Don't bother putting me on ignore as although I can refute anything you 'learn' from Faux News' just from my general knowledge, I can't do it in a definitive fashion as my research is all anecdotal. Oh, just like yours. Hmmm.
Etc. Etc.
The trend is clearly not cooperating with your Russian scientists et al.
Hottest Year
Posted on January 2, 2011 by tamino| 17 Comments
It’s near certain that in the GISS global temperature data set, 2010 will end up the hottest year on record. In fact some of those who deny the reality of global warming have already begun to “spin” the event, downplaying its significance by suggesting that observing the “hottest year” is no big deal. This, from the same people who believe in the mythical “levelling off” or “cooling” of temperatures over the last decade or so.
As I’ve tried to emphasize often, it’s the trend that’s the big deal. Not the moment-to-moment noise, or month-to-month or year-to-year noise, not some false trend you think you see (or don’t see) because you so desperately want to believe in Santa Claus.
Let’s look back at the decade of the 2000s (up to the end of 2009), to discover whether or not it behaved as was expected according to global warming. Then we’ll add the year 2010 to the mix, and ponder whether this single year has any real implication for global warming. To set the stage, here’s the global annual average data from GISS, from 1975 through the end of 1999:
I’ve also plotted the trend line (in blue), which illustrates the global warming trend observed during this time period.
Did that trend continue in the 2000s? In other words, did we observe something reasonably close to the red line in this graph?
The answer is: YES.
Yes, global temperature during the 2000s behaved just as expected, according to the “global warming will continue” theory. In fact the decadal average from 2000.0 to 2010.0 is a wee bit warmer than the projected average using the 1975.0-2000.0 trend.
Let’s add the year 2010 as the final red dot on the graph:
What’s the significance of the 2010 result? Simply that it too is in accord with the “continued global warming” theory. In fact, it looks like the decade of the 2010s is off to an even warmer start than expected.
Posted on January 2, 2011 by tamino| 17 Comments
It’s near certain that in the GISS global temperature data set, 2010 will end up the hottest year on record. In fact some of those who deny the reality of global warming have already begun to “spin” the event, downplaying its significance by suggesting that observing the “hottest year” is no big deal. This, from the same people who believe in the mythical “levelling off” or “cooling” of temperatures over the last decade or so.
As I’ve tried to emphasize often, it’s the trend that’s the big deal. Not the moment-to-moment noise, or month-to-month or year-to-year noise, not some false trend you think you see (or don’t see) because you so desperately want to believe in Santa Claus.
Let’s look back at the decade of the 2000s (up to the end of 2009), to discover whether or not it behaved as was expected according to global warming. Then we’ll add the year 2010 to the mix, and ponder whether this single year has any real implication for global warming. To set the stage, here’s the global annual average data from GISS, from 1975 through the end of 1999:
I’ve also plotted the trend line (in blue), which illustrates the global warming trend observed during this time period.
Did that trend continue in the 2000s? In other words, did we observe something reasonably close to the red line in this graph?
The answer is: YES.
Yes, global temperature during the 2000s behaved just as expected, according to the “global warming will continue” theory. In fact the decadal average from 2000.0 to 2010.0 is a wee bit warmer than the projected average using the 1975.0-2000.0 trend.
Let’s add the year 2010 as the final red dot on the graph:
What’s the significance of the 2010 result? Simply that it too is in accord with the “continued global warming” theory. In fact, it looks like the decade of the 2010s is off to an even warmer start than expected.
Etc. Etc.
The trend is clearly not cooperating with your Russian scientists et al.The trend is clearly not cooperating with your Russian scientists et al.Hottest Year
Posted on January 2, 2011 by tamino| 17 Comments
It’s near certain that in the GISS global temperature data set, 2010 will end up the hottest year on record. In fact some of those who deny the reality of global warming have already begun to “spin” the event, downplaying its significance by suggesting that observing the “hottest year” is no big deal. This, from the same people who believe in the mythical “levelling off” or “cooling” of temperatures over the last decade or so.
As I’ve tried to emphasize often, it’s the trend that’s the big deal. Not the moment-to-moment noise, or month-to-month or year-to-year noise, not some false trend you think you see (or don’t see) because you so desperately want to believe in Santa Claus.
Let’s look back at the decade of the 2000s (up to the end of 2009), to discover whether or not it behaved as was expected according to global warming. Then we’ll add the year 2010 to the mix, and ponder whether this single year has any real implication for global warming. To set the stage, here’s the global annual average data from GISS, from 1975 through the end of 1999:
I’ve also plotted the trend line (in blue), which illustrates the global warming trend observed during this time period.
Did that trend continue in the 2000s? In other words, did we observe something reasonably close to the red line in this graph?
The answer is: YES.
Yes, global temperature during the 2000s behaved just as expected, according to the “global warming will continue” theory. In fact the decadal average from 2000.0 to 2010.0 is a wee bit warmer than the projected average using the 1975.0-2000.0 trend.
Let’s add the year 2010 as the final red dot on the graph:
What’s the significance of the 2010 result? Simply that it too is in accord with the “continued global warming” theory. In fact, it looks like the decade of the 2010s is off to an even warmer start than expected.
Hottest Year
Posted on January 2, 2011 by tamino| 17 Comments
It’s near certain that in the GISS global temperature data set, 2010 will end up the hottest year on record. In fact some of those who deny the reality of global warming have already begun to “spin” the event, downplaying its significance by suggesting that observing the “hottest year” is no big deal. This, from the same people who believe in the mythical “levelling off” or “cooling” of temperatures over the last decade or so.
As I’ve tried to emphasize often, it’s the trend that’s the big deal. Not the moment-to-moment noise, or month-to-month or year-to-year noise, not some false trend you think you see (or don’t see) because you so desperately want to believe in Santa Claus.
Let’s look back at the decade of the 2000s (up to the end of 2009), to discover whether or not it behaved as was expected according to global warming. Then we’ll add the year 2010 to the mix, and ponder whether this single year has any real implication for global warming. To set the stage, here’s the global annual average data from GISS, from 1975 through the end of 1999:
I’ve also plotted the trend line (in blue), which illustrates the global warming trend observed during this time period.
Did that trend continue in the 2000s? In other words, did we observe something reasonably close to the red line in this graph?
The answer is: YES.
Yes, global temperature during the 2000s behaved just as expected, according to the “global warming will continue” theory. In fact the decadal average from 2000.0 to 2010.0 is a wee bit warmer than the projected average using the 1975.0-2000.0 trend.
Let’s add the year 2010 as the final red dot on the graph:
What’s the significance of the 2010 result? Simply that it too is in accord with the “continued global warming” theory. In fact, it looks like the decade of the 2010s is off to an even warmer start than expected.
Out of historical climate context apparently and the data was cherry picked by recognized heavily interested industrial liars specifically to arrive at market boosting numbers, in other words you have nothing tangible to base your insane conclusions on. Here's a nice little article it should enlighten you of the real magnitude of the global warming strategy. Population subjugation realized by suppression of climate awareness and the well and truly exercised and proven big lie. Populations unprepared for cold snaps of a decade or more can and will be significantly reduced, this will enhance the survival and perpetuation of the bad guys. And we will actually be seduced into paying for the treatment. Cold starving people in summer wear will be exceedingly easy to herd.
Think of the SiFi novel and the flick rights, spin off lunch boxes and pillow cases, plastic toys, special guest appearances and on and on, the sky is no limit, it will be bigger than Scar Wars. Sadly the entertainment gold barge book deal of the century will require consumers. Not to worry though when the frost melts someone will poo poo the histories and global catastrophy will become myth again and in the morning when the sun shines the evil game can start in earnest all over. Remember we are being attacked by bayonette bearing CO2 spewers it is every citizens duty to defend the president and the constitution from the invading hordes of evil molecules even now eating western babies and carrying off our women and cattle.
Out of historical climate context apparently and the data was cherry picked by recognized heavily interested industrial liars specifically to arrive at market boosting numbers, in other words you have nothing tangible to base your insane conclusions on. Here's a nice little article it should enlighten you of the real magnitude of the global warming strategy. Population subjugation realized by suppression of climate awareness and the well and truly exercised and proven big lie. Populations unprepared for cold snaps of a decade or more can and will be significantly reduced, this will enhance the survival and perpetuation of the bad guys. And we will actually be seduced into paying for the treatment. Cold starving people in summer wear will be exceedingly easy to herd.
Think of the SiFi novel and the flick rights, spin off lunch boxes and pillow cases, plastic toys, special guest appearances and on and on, the sky is no limit, it will be bigger than Scar Wars. Sadly the entertainment gold barge book deal of the century will require consumers. Not to worry though when the frost melts someone will poo poo the histories and global catastrophy will become myth again and in the morning when the sun shines the evil game can start in earnest all over. Remember we are being attacked by bayonette bearing CO2 spewers it is every citizens duty to defend the president and the constitution from the invading hordes of evil molecules even now eating western babies and carrying off our women and cattle.
That's right, it's a massive conspiracy by banks, governments, the science community, NASA, universities, the UN, the media, Jews, nature, the iluminati, aliens, etc etc etc.......
When you fail at arguing the science and get pwnd over and over it's all you have to fall back on and it's a mighty big sword to fall on.
Climate science, it's data, and methods are arguably more open than any other branch of science. You do nothing in here but spout big lies...the sun, the electric cosmos, and a mangled view of thermodynamics.
You can prove nothing whatever of that accusation though can you? You can't even provide the least of plausible explanations of the sun can you?
As we count the cost of the freeze, Government prepares for global warming
I can...which post would you like me to quote where you think a greenhouse gas violates the laws of thermodynamics? Or how about when you ignore the laws of thermodynamics by insisting that adiabatic and convective processes have no role whatsoever in cloud height or formation.
The proof is in your ignorant rants.
The truly ignorant have no idea of their condition and always prove it by flinging the accusation rather than make sure that their not afflicted. So, boy,that's where you are and you're still to green to even suspect it.. The laws of thermodynamics are governed by the laws of electricity, electricity is the mover in all convective processes bar none and that is the fact that you and your silly warmistas don't or won't get. Electricity is #1 if it isn't in your papers then your papers are worthless junk, period.
Explain adiabatic cooling without it and you haven't explained it at all. Electricity is the prime mover of the atmosphere not convection. So before we get into any stupid frothing arguments we will establish weather the atmospheric water is charged or not, there's my source below. How can we possibly credit any global warming model when the main source of driving power is not even mentioned in passing?
Electricity collected from the air could become the newest alternative energy source
"This was clear evidence that water in the atmosphere can accumulate electrical charges and transfer them to other materials it comes into contact with," Galembeck explained. "We are calling this 'hygroelectricity,' meaning 'humidity electricity'."
Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Recovered: Clouds and Gravity
The water molecule is fascinating because, unlike the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the air, it is electrically polarized.
So it is proposed that water droplets in clouds experience an antigravity effect. It appears to be related to the 'Biefield-Brown Effect,' where a charged high-voltage planar capacitor tends to move in the direction of the positive electrode. That effect may explain how millions of tons of water can be suspended kilometres above the ground, when cloud droplets are about 1,000 times denser than the surrounding air.
Once the water vapor condenses into water droplets it is more plausible that millions of tons of water can remain suspended kilometres above the Earth by electrical means, rather than by thermal updraughts. The clouds would act to reduce thermals.
Ahh, the master of circular nonsense.
Adiabtic processes are the result of a change in pressure.
You and your electric universe crap. You'll latch onto anything that isn't mainstream, no matter how hair-brained the idea, and no matter how poor the evidence.
Predictable beaver.
Sprinkle a bit of pseudo-science into a large pot of utter bs, and you can fool a lot of people quickly.
Oh pressure, of course, how could I possibly have missed that! Would that be the same pressure that keeps your misshapen head from collapsing or is it the millions of cows farting CO2 in sync.
Yes well if you could be so kind as to inform the audience as to the science underlying the suspension of clouds in earths atmosphere. They will be very impressed to learn how hot air can hold up millions of tons of frozen water (possibly ice).
A disinterested judge of circular nonsense you're not.
You've uncritically swallowed junk science, that's how.
Radiation from the sun hits the earth, and warms the surface. The warmed surface heats the parcel of air above it. Warmed air rises because it is less dense than the cold air. The atmosphere is largely a fluid after all. The condensing water molecules are kept aloft by other updrafts, formed when warm parcels of air meet cold parcels of air, or by high/low pressure regions in the atmosphere. The water droplets will want to fall as they get heavier, and they do. They rise and fall, rise and fall, as they continue to encounter updrafts. As the warm updrafts rise, they bring more moisture to the cloud, as the rising air cools, water condenses out of the vapour, and is available to precipitation. This is clearly evident when large hail-stones are cut in half. The hail stone is layered like an onion.
Eventually the precipitation is too heavy and falls. Updrafts have been recorded up to 300 km/hour. That's enough to keep even the rocks in your head airborn.