Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

Non sequitur, as GHG molecules that absorb photons get hot, and surface-bound molecules that emit photons get cold.

But not necessarily of a lower energy than a surface-bound molecule can absorb.

What we don't have is a means of making the earliest datasets comparable with those of even 30 years ago, to say nothing of the ARGO era that began in 2K.

 

This is what makes forums and discussions like this happy for me! I had no clue that ARGO has 3100 Iridium connected floats around the world. Badass!

https://fleetmonitoring.euro-argo.eu/dashboard

 

Something I gripe about with respect to THE MODEL is does it account for potential variability in what to my mind should be suspect #1, although admittedly of course I’m no Arrhenius, let alone Greta or Big Al: solar irradiance.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/solar.irradiance/

Nifty trend there since 1850, eh? Sure it’s a minute scale, 1365 to 1367 W/m/m, but so is the scale of most every graph that we are supposed to believe predicts the end of life as we know it.

 

The failure of the point you are trying to make lies in the misunderstanding of the enormity of time earth has existed and acting as if one hundred years is a long enough period to consider a barometer of climate. One hundred years of earth existence is l comparable to the last half second of your life. Would you consider the last half second of your life as relevant in a discussion of your entire existence?
And before you say yes when it comes to body temperature please remember earth unlike the human body has no normal temperature. Sometimes I think you warmers forget that and equate our planet to a living being.

 

Now we all know how base ignorance is formed.

Since both of you are intent on remaining ignorant, there is nothing I can do about that.

The entire video series is about climate change; I will not reinvent the wheel, or do that math and images in text form, ASCII art, for base Ignorant people.

 

You mean the graph that shows solar irradiance flattening out?

You know it amazes me that some people can think that scientists could have missed the blindingly obvious - the sun

Or did they?

Ooooops!

Seems they have investigated

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

 

Ironic ^^^^ Where in the video is it proven that human CO2 emissions are responsible for the current global warming ????

 

In the video the man explains things, visually. I can’t do that for you due to your limitations; I played with ASCII when I was using DOS, and large floppies before I had a hard drive or windows 3.1, and I also made my own character sets for math and physics classes for WordStar, many of us did. If you were one of those people that used a Linux terminal only I might understand, I have a disk with a working tool chain for DSLinux.


The difference between Air (nitrogen, and oxygen…) and CO2 on a molecular level, why greenhouses gases exist, is that greenhouse gas molecules are different from air, they vibrate, and why they interact with passing infrared radiation; this was in the video with pictures. O=O (does not vibrate) O=C=O (does vibrate)

The video also showed graphically, with several graphs, I will not use ASCII to illustrate, how the greenhouse gases do not stop incoming visible light from the sun for the use of SB law, but, when calculated the temperature of the earth was off at -21 degrees Celsius, that is we freeze. The professor then asked, why? I have already told you many times. One student in the class said it was radiation from the earth, since the earth has radioactive elements in it, like uranium, but that is negligible, and then we get to the atmosphere. Using SB law to calculate the temperature of the earth lacks atmosphere, and most atmospheres have a greenhouse gas. That is why we are NOT frozen; we have a greenhouse already and long before man.

Energy is not being created out of nothing, that would be God like, the earth reflects and then the clouds (O-H-O, vibrates) and greenhouse gases like CO2 reflect back the infrared to the earth heating it, without greenhouse gases we freeze as per SB used by itself.

 

You're still denying thermodynamics and stefan boltzmann...

 

Watch the video, then one hint might be the number of the video out of more. It was not presented to prove human CO2 emissions are responsible for a greenhouse, it was about "habitability," why our earth is a nice little place to live.

 

Have you found a single scientist that agrees with your interpretation of those laws?

 

So you have nothing except watch the video Oracle ???

BTW a warmer earth is a better place to live. That is well documented for the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan warm periods.

 

Fallacy Fallacy. Not what a non sequitur is.

I wouldn't say "get hot", but yes, the CO2 molecule does warm somewhat. I think that's the point being made here, that the CO2 molecule does in fact increase in temperature. If so, then we are agreed at this point.

I'm not sure what you mean by "surface-bound molecule", but yes, when a CO2 molecule emits photons, that action cools the CO2 molecule.

I'm not sure what you mean by "surface-bound molecule".

 

This has nothing to do with ignorance. I'm quite willing to address whatever arguments the video was making if you were to simply present those arguments to me in text format. I, by personal choice, do not address videos on debate forums such as this. I require arguments to be presented in text format, and I typically also require that arguments be one's own (ie, not just cut/pasted from some other website).

Define "climate change". Describe precisely how a subjective thing with no quantitative value "changes".

Good, because the wheel works quite well!

Oh well. Like I said, present me an argument in text form and I will address it.

 

Without watching it, I can assure you that nowhere in the video is any of that proven, as it is not possible for CO2 (a colder body) to heat the Earth's surface (a warmer body). Thermal energy does not flow from cold to hot. One cannot heat a hot beverage with an ice cube.

 

Yup, that's what I said. It's obvious that y'all do not wish to discuss the science itself.

Politics has nothing to do with thermodynamics nor the stefan boltzmann law.

Good movie!

It is not possible to measure global atmospheric CO2 concentration. We don't have enough stations. They aren't uniformly spaced and simultaneously read, along with various other math errors.

Heat does not "accumulate" anywhere. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It is not possible to trap heat. There is no "greenhouse warming". Where is this additional energy coming from? How can colder CO2 heat the warmer surface of the Earth? How can Earth's surface increase in temperature WHILE decrease in radiance? The theory of Greenhouse Effect violates thermodynamics and stefan boltzmann.

 

Seriously, obviously our educational system has failed miserably.

We, can fix that.

Resistance is futile! You will be absorbed into the Bern collective.

 

Resistance is futile! You will be absorbed into the Bern collective.

 

So again nothing.

 

The whole point of this is about the guy that never got out of elementary school, who thinks this is a black body, greenhouse gases don't exist, there is no such thing as climate change...
"00:00 - Chapter 1. Earth Energy Balance
03:34 - Chapter 2. Black Body Radiation -- Wien's Law and Stephan-Boltzmann Law
16:05 - Chapter 3. Infrared Emission
18:08 - Chapter 4. Simple Model of Earth's Energy Balance
25:51 - Chapter 5. Equilibrium Calculations of Earth's Energy Budget
33:29 - Chapter 6. Greenhouse Effect in Earth's Atmosphere
40:39 - Chapter 7. Energy Budgets for Other Planets
45:24 - Chapter 8. What is a Greenhouse Gas?"...

Forgot, this too:
“But if one thing is sure in climate science, it is that without a global economic meltdown or pandemic, atmospheric CO2 will continue to increase…” (p 225, Doubt and certainty in climate science, Alan Longhurst) https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/longhurst-print.pdf

 

And no proof that human CO2 emissions are responsible for the current global warming.

 

I was editing, see above.

 

What threat? Define "climate change". Describe the mechanism of Greenhouse Effect in a way which does not violate logic, math, or science.

Correct. The planet will be just fine.

Why not?

 

Argument by randU Fallacy.
Buzzword Fallacy.

And your data (adhering to Statistical Mathematics) for this "current warming event" is....?? Your justification for the arbitrarily selected years that you are comparing is.....??

Your argumentation continues to deny logic, science, and mathematics.

 

Natural rate of climate change? Oh you mean like the LIA era when towns and farmland were overrun by rapidly advancing glaciers? You honestly believe climate of today is changing faster than that?