Physicist Offers $10,000 to Anyone Who Can Disprove Global Warming

RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit according to your link.

 

So you would agree that RSS is underestimating global surface temperature over the last few years?

 

They often differ. Here is the historic difference between RSS and GISS.



Here is the historic difference between GISS and UAH.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4c9kovx9n8zsvsv/GISS vs RSS.pdf

UAH and RSS match very closely. Both differences are very similar meaning might it be GISS that is the problem? It doesn't change the fact that temps have been flat for all for the same period.

 

Contrails do you even know how ice cores work?

I'm attacking your source as not being qualified. She is a press agent. She probably has the same mistaken assumption about the nature of ice cores as you do because like you she doesn't have the slightest clue how they work.

 

What do you think temperature is?

1C is 0.52Wh. The brightness tells us the Wh of the troposphere. Brightness is a direct measure of temperature. Its your thermometer that is a proxy. You thermometer uses the thermal expansion of mercury as a proxy for temperature.

First, satellites do not measure the surface. You knew that when you made your post. Now you are back tracking because you know its contradictory. As for measuring outside temperature a heat cammera through the window will be far far far more accurate. Again you know bupkiss about physics.

 

sure...but what fun would this topic be if everyone did? Worse yet, what if everyone knew something about geology as well!! Then they would know how much higher temperatures have been before, without even coal fired powered plants to blame it on!!!

I say we just blame the coal fired power plants for EVERYTHING! From the color of our eyes to our height, and be done with the discussion. I mean the warmers have been churning for years now, Hansen once claimed that a complete cessation of CO2 emissions would result in....wait for it...higher temperatures than we actually achieved while pumping out all over the place!!

Count me in for more understanding, and less hysteria!!!

 

Sure. Can you explain what mechanism connects ice core temperature proxies to the latitude their drilled at?

You're assuming that the editor wrote all of the copy themselves and didn't have it vetted by the NASA scientists who actually do the work. You know what they say about assuming?

 

I already put you on the right track. But I dont think you will ever understand it.

Your non-answer shows that you have absolutely 0 idea how they actually work.

If you had bother to read the article instead of posting the first thing you got from a Google search you would have noticed that NASA doesn't' do the work.

 

So nobobdy's made any money yet? How sad, but predictable.

 

Straw man - and un referenced rubbish

 

Very predictable, first response in this thread

Loki keeps his head this (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bag keeps his money. Only a fool would think that Loki's wager is an actual wager.

 

Unreferenced? You might have missed the point, but I didn't really make a claim requiring one, did I? Certainly everyone in this thread knows that temperatures have been higher in the past then they are now (several times actually), and if they don't 5 seconds of googling about the planet's temperature history can solve that little "lack of needed knowledge" issue. And Hansen's work should be just as well known, I remember using one of his past bad temperature predictions to make the perfect illogical example...goes like this....Hansen projected a temperature under 3 scenarios of CO2 emissions, as is, some major reduction, and complete cessation. That temperature reality under "complete cessation" of CO2 emissions was HIGHER than what happened next. So obviously massively expanding CO2 emissions had the effect of creating far LESS temperature than was predicted, rather than more!! Gotta love it when the guy's own work allows this kind of statement to be made.

You have to give the guy credit, since the instant he decided that CO2 was causing the temperature rebound out of the LIA he has done nothing but unidirectionally pimp it. Count on him like the sun riding you can, evidence be damned. Made a career out of it. Certainly THAT might require a reference, but I found the source reference right at this very website, so it can't be that hard to look it up.

Unless of course... YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE IT.

That seems to cover quite a few individuals, when it comes to certain issues within this topic.

 

Here are global temperature trends for the last 17 years and 10 months for HadCRUT4, GISSTemp, UAH, and RSS. Which one do you think is the outlier here? Maybe you should reevaluate your facts.

 

You should really worry less about what other people know and more about what you don't, like that satellites don't measure Earth's temperature directly. Microwave sounding units measure the amount of thermal radiation from different levels in Earth's atmosphere. Actual temperatures are then inferred from these measurements thru the process of inversion, which requires actual temperature measurements. Guess where these measurements come from?

 

You are flailing, linking to studies that you think might prove your point and hoping that they do. You cant give a direct quote because you don't understand them. You are afraid that I will once again show that you didn't understand what you were reading such as your claim that your previously linked article.

Since you clearly have no physics education let me make it very clear to you.

Temperature is just another unit for energy. A degree centigrade is 1/100 the amount of energy needed to raise 1 cubic centimeter of water to its boiling point or 0.52Wh. The satellites are making a direct measurement of energy. Thermometers are measuring the thermal expansion of mercury as a proxy for energy.

And nothing in your stupid fricking wiki link bull(*)(*)(*)(*) says that satellites need temperature measurements from thermometers to be calibrated.

You dont know what the hell you are talking about!

 

So what? 2005 and 2010 were higher. It's called natural variability. The longer temperature trend has been up, tracking the rise in CO2. So are you really going to dispute human caused global warming?

 

What you don't seem to realize is that the brightness temperature measured by satellites is not the true surface temperature, and is dependent on variables such as land use, surface roughness, and soil moisture. Accounting for these variables requires comparing brightness temperature to the real temperature at locations where both are known.

 

Some of us know this. Others make really bad causal/correlation arguments because they do not.

Here is the LONGER temperature trend to which you must be referring.



As far as temperature tracking CO2 rather than the other way around...I mean really...are you going to try and spoon feed us the same basic paleoclimate mistake that Al Gore made?

Like this one?



How about something that DOES track temperature change? Like this one?



Or if you prefer the science showing CO2 lags temperature, maybe these will do? Certainly while those claiming "the science is settled" might not review this type of obvious evidence, perhaps you wish to?

Fischer, Wahlen, Smith, Mastoianni and Deck, 1999, Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial Terminations,
Science, v 283, p 1712-1714?

 

I was referring to AGW obviously. That has been measured since 1880. I guess that old literalism kicked you in the knee cap again.

Standard denialist error. It works both ways. Each influences the other. You really don't understand the rudiments of the subject.

 

And the other way you have no evidence of. Show me one experiment that shows the 120PPM of CO2 drives temperature. s0n, you can't. LoSiNg

 

And I was referring to the SCIENCE that might indicate that any models based on a spurious relationship might themselves be suspect. If you have the most wonderful calculation in the world, composed by artists in math from the best universities...and they all start with the premise that 2+2=5....well...you can see how some might be suspicious of anything they derive from such a fundamental flaw in their work.

You mean, the temperature rebounding out of the LIA because of solar cycles has been measured since 1880? And it just so happens that CO2 emissions accompanying the progression of the Industrial Revolution happened to put some more CO2 into the air...AT THE SAME TIME THAT SOMETHING ELSE WAS CAUSING TEMPERATURE TO RISE?

What an amazing thought!! I wonder why the "science is settled" crowd haven't picked up on the SCIENCE involved here?

Things that make you go mmmmmm.....

I agree. Someone should start including in grant proposals the requirement that people stop assuming causation and correlation. That should put quite a cork in some of these silly folks who are pretending otherwise!

I understand that you would rather say that then discuss the point...perhaps because....the folks building models on such a relationship won't admit it...the misunderstanding being critical to their continued grant funding.

 

What is funny is that you don't even realize that your frame of reference doesn't' support your cause. Global CO2 didn't start rising in significantly enough for there to be a substantial measurable AGW effect until after world war 2.

The fact that this trend you so love started 65 years before CO2 could have had a noticeable effect hurts your cause it doesn't help it.

I expect all of your further posts to be 'since 1945' since being wrong never causes warmmongers to question their arguments only change them.

 

In a feedback system, doesn't temperature both lead and follow CO2?

 

The paper discusses how to calculate surface temperature from satellite measured brightness temperature, which I've explained before is not the same as actual temperature. In the photo below you can see that each side of the cube presents a different brightness temperature despite being at the same actual temperature.

That is why thermal sensors must be calibrated by comparing them to a known temperature. Now I'll ask you again, how do you calibrate satellite temperature records without using land based temperature records?

 

If you can prove that adding 120 PPM of CO2 drives a climb in temperature then you can make that statement. Until then, no!