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

No. You are.

 

Thank goodness my flashback of physics class, where the theoretical physicist (high-energy weapons, waiting for another job), holding his hands up to illustrate that band of habitability that should make a religious person’s neck tingle, includes the hottie blond in the next row over. {The EMT with a cool story of responding to a heart attack in the Hood, who got shot at around the time the Red Dog Squad was using ambulances for drug raids, sat behind me.}

Climate change – Elephants carry earth, mouse scares them, and they drop it
Climate change – how the Sun was decapitated and Venus came up but the Sun did not in Mayan myth of hero twins
Climate change -- how the barbarians crossed the river to plague Rome
Climate change – how Caesar conquered Gaul…
Climate change – how Rome conquered Egypt
Climate change -- a change in global or regional climate patterns
Climate change – the wimpy “liberal” safe space

 

Okay, well that's too bad. Then we'll have to toss aside that part of the argumentation.

O2 also vibrates. Photons are not identical.

You cannot use the SB Law to calculate the temperature of the Earth because you do not know what the emissivity of Earth is. Sounds like this professor was just pulling numbers out of his ass.

SB Law cannot be used to calculate temperature since we don't know the emissivity of Earth. Also, an atmosphere of a planet IS part of that planet. The presence of an atmosphere does not warm a planet any, as it is not a source of energy. What it does is add mass, so temperature swings (warming/cooling of the surface) are limited. This is largely why you see such drastic temperature swings on Mercury, limited temp swings on Earth, and virtually no temp swings on Venus.

Correct, so why do you keep arguing that it can be?

Wrong. CO2 does not reflect IR. It absorbs it. Once absorbed, those photons are destroyed. New photons are radiated from the CO2 molecule in all directions, but those photons are of much lower energy than the photons it absorbed. Again, photons are not identical. That's why there are different colors of light.

We wouldn't freeze.

 

At present, roughly 30% of the incoming solar radiation is reflected back to space by the clouds, aerosols, and the surface of Earth. Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth's average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C) instead of the much warmer 59°F (15°C).

Science Briefs: Greenhouse Gases: Refining the ... - NASA GISS

Might starve to death first I guess.

 

Watch the video before claiming anything about the professor.


https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA18833

https://www.stat.washington.edu/peter/Emissivity.html

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/84499/measuring-earths-albedo

 

I do not mean the flattening out.

The first paragraph of my link explained, "Extrapolations from the end of the series are based on an exactly repeating 11-yr copy of the previous cycle."

Therefore the solar irradiance force flattening after 2000 is because the [1980, 2000] presumably accurate real time data is used to extrapolate the SI to 2020.

Maybe if you have a chance to spend enough time to look at the entire curve then we can further discuss the point I believe I make regarding its,

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

similarity, as but one example, to this,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record.

Scientists could have missed the blindingly obvious? Yes, it is the history of science isn't it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_science

Thanks for the link.

The number of authors seems a bit odd for a scientific paper: 2 Coordinating Lead Authors, 13 Lead Authors, 23 Contributing Authors and 3 Review Editors.

Does this consensus science therefore mean that solar flux is less accurate because only two authors are referenced, Lean and Wang?

Regarding your link's Solar Irradiance Section 8.4.1, and I quote with bold and italics from your link:

"8.4.1 Solar Irradiance In earlier IPCC reports the forcing was estimated as the instantaneous RF at TOA. However, due to wavelength-albedo dependence, solar radiation-wavelength dependence and absorption within the stratosphere and the resulting stratospheric adjustment, the RF is reduced to about 78% of the TOA instantaneous RF (Gray et al., 2009). There is low confidence in the exact value of this number, which can be model and time scale dependent (Gregory et al., 2004; Hansen et al., 2005).

 

He will not watch a professor, which came to around -21, he is not listening to you. He simply will go back to taking points, claiming atmospheres can't warm a planet, as if he has been to all of the universe. Such god like knowing...

What we need is a Dyson sphere made of one-way mirrored plates that flip.

 

they just repaved the office parking lot, black again, I thought white was a thing they were phasing back in, I guess not.

 

Just the stripes.

 

Inversion Fallacy.

 

Using your definition of science, we could place a Dyson type sphere around the earth and disregarding vapor could call it atmosphere. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/07/bil...gineering-could-help-stop-global-warming.html
Watch the lecture.

 

Doesn't answer the question.

Void definition. Try again.

Void definition. Try again.

Void definition. Try again.

Void definition. Try again.

Void definition. Try again.

Circular definition. Try again.

Why not just keep saying "safe space"?

 

Your dictionary is on pages 40 and 42 of this topic.

 

Clearly I need to party with you bro....

 

We do not know the emissivity of Earth, as we do not know the temperature of Earth.

We do not know the temperature of Earth either.

NASA is not science. They regularly deny it nowadays.

 

I don't have to watch it to know that he is making use of randU numbers.

It is not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth, as we do not know the temperature of Earth.

randU numbers. See above.

randU numbers. See above.

 

Correct. I do not watch video arguments. I expect arguments to be presented to me in text form. Other people are more than willing to watch and address such videos, but I am not one of those people.

Yes I am.

I have no list of talking points. I form my own arguments each time I come across an argument on here.

Atmospheres ARE the planet. (part of it, anyway)
Additionally, atmospheres are not an energy source.

No need for either.

Okay, get on that if you wish.

 

randU numbers. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth with any usable accuracy. We don't have near enough thermometers to do so, among numerous other math errors.

Source: Statistical Mathematics

 

Solar roadways and solar panel pavement is what they are going to. White is never comming back no matter what they say. It's all disco from here on out.

 

More irrational fear peddling.

 

Really? We don't have enough thermometers?

 

Post #?

 

we of course know the temperature of the earth.

you can not demonstrate this to be true.

 

you've been shown that it is.

you can not demonstrate this to be true.

no, it is a bald assertion fallacy.