Climate - The Movie

[Spock]

So you admit, you are not qualified to make such determinations.

Sure. There are many subjects that I am not an expert in.

well guess what. I am.

Doubtful. If you were really an expert, you would not be arguing with strangers and quoting gibberish.

I get tired of such idiotic arguments. When it comes to medicine, we have hundreds of millions of various patients. We only have one earth and it is too large to do proper laboratory verification.

No it is not. It is easier to understand the earth and atmosphere than a human body.

you are way out of your league trying to argue this topic.

I know charlatans when I encounter them. Typically they claim knowledge that cannot really be explained to the average person and they insist that all the conflicting information or advice is wrong.

 

[longview]

That is pure gibberish.......

How so? This is published data in a peer reviewed journal study.
Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate

3.2.
Attribution of EEI Trends
We consider CERES TOA EEI trends for 09/2002–03/2020 and examine the underlying contributions from different atmospheric and surface variables available over that time period. Trends are determined from a least squares regression fit to deseasonalized monthly anomalies with uncertainties given as 5%–95% con-fidence intervals.For this period, the observations show a trend in net downward radiation of 0.41 ± 0.22 W m−2 decade−1that is the result of the sum of a 0.65 ± 0.17 W m−2 decade−1 trend in absorbed solar radiation (ASR) and a −0.24 ± 0.13 W m−2 decade−1 trend in downward radiation due to an increase in OLR (Figures 2a–2c). TOA fluxes are defined positive downwards so that a positive anomaly/trend corresponds to a heat gain and a negative anomaly corresponds to a heat loss. As such, emitted thermal radiation (ETR) is defined positive downward and is therefore equal to −OLR.

It says that between 2002 and 2020 they detected a -.24 W m-2 trend in the downward (longwave) radiation.
Are you denying that the CO2 level increased between 2002 and 2020, or that the CERES satellite data was reported incorrectly?

 

[longview]

I think the individuals who provide unreferenced "data" and claim to understand the climate process better than the climate experts are more likely to be wrong than someone who admits to some unfamiliarity with the research.

The only unreferenced data presented here...is Yours!

 

[Lord of Planar]

If you claim "significant" is defined only as greater than or equal to 5%... that is both nonsense and your arbitrary judgment.

Not non-sense. They use the term to confuse the ignorant, and it works. If they meant and can show it is the most, they would have used the word "most."

 

[Lord of Planar]

The lesson here is that you constructed a graph 20 years ago that is derivative and have no substantiation for it.

Serious? You claim it has no substance because you do not understand it?

 

[Spock]

How so? This is published data in a peer reviewed journal study.
Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate

It says that between 2002 and 2020 they detected a -.24 W m-2 trend in the downward (longwave) radiation.
Are you denying that the CO2 level increased between 2002 and 2020, or that the CERES satellite data was reported incorrectly?

Actually what it says is this:
"Climate is determined by how much of the sun's energy the Earth absorbs and how much energy Earth sheds through emission of thermal infrared radiation. Their sum determines whether Earth heats up or cools down. Continued increases in concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and the long time-scales time required for the ocean, cryosphere, and land to come to thermal equilibrium with those increases result in a net gain of energy, hence warming, on Earth. Most of this excess energy (about 90%) warms the ocean, with the remainder heating the land, melting snow and ice, and warming the atmosphere. Here we compare satellite observations of the net radiant energy absorbed by Earth with a global array of measurements used to determine heating within the ocean, land and atmosphere, and melting of snow and ice. We show that these two independent approaches yield a decadal increase in the rate of energy uptake by Earth from mid-2005 through mid-2019, which we attribute to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea-ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor."

 

[Spock]

Serious? You claim it has no substance because you do not understand it?

If you understand science you will understand that substantiation refers to support in the science literature preferably by an academic study, peer-reviewed.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Sure. There are many subjects that I am not an expert in.

You should not be arguing against those who do understand. You are making Spock look like Jar Jar Binks.

Doubtful. If you were really an expert, you would not be arguing with strangers and quoting gibberish.

Foreign languages sound like gibberish to me. Just another indication you are out of your element.

No it is not. It is easier to understand the earth and atmosphere than a human body.

The basics are still very complicated. Yet, looking at any earth energy balance diagram and using the standard 5.35 x ln (Cx/C0) it is easy to to see the sensitivity of CO2 is only about 0.6 C.

I know charlatans when I encounter them.

Bullshit.

Typically they claim knowledge that cannot really be explained to the average person and they insist that all the conflicting information or advice is wrong.

it takes little education to understand these things I have explained. I showed you the math. This is math i learned in the 7th grade, but maybe a HS graduate no longer is taught these things.

If you are claiming me explanation if RE and GWP are incorrect, and that my numbers are incorrect.... You need to take that up with the IPCC, because I am using their numbers.

 

[Spock]

The only unreferenced data presented here...is Yours!

I haven't reference any data which leads me to believe that you do not understand data.
My posts are lay language observations and not data. I don't care, particularly if you understand the climate of Venus or Earth. I do object to your posting complex observations and "data" ( that is essentially gibberish) out of context and without supporting references by trusted sources.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I haven't reference any data which leads me to believe that you do not understand data.
My posts are lay language observations and not data. I don't care, particularly if you understand the climate of Venus or Earth. I do object to your posting complex observations and "data" ( that is essentially gibberish) out of context and without supporting references by trusted sources.

So... You once again have nothing but workd.

I can explain why things are like they are in words and back it up with science and math. You call it gibberish. I guess math is a foreign language to you.

 

[Spock]

You should not be arguing against those who do understand. You are making Spock look like Jar Jar Binks.

Foreign languages sound like gibberish to me. Just another indication you are out of your element.

The basics are still very complicated. Yet, looking at any earth energy balance diagram and using the standard 5.35 x ln (Cx/C0) it is easy to to see the sensitivity of CO2 is only about 0.6 C.

Bullshit.

it takes little education to understand these things I have explained. I showed you the math. This is math i learned in the 7th grade, but maybe a HS graduate no longer is taught these things.

If you are claiming me explanation if RE and GWP are incorrect, and that my numbers are incorrect.... You need to take that up with the IPCC, because I am using their numbers.

All these comments are consistent with duplicity and charlatanism.
Science can be explained simply and without resorting the arcane knowledge that merely obscures the topic.

 

[Lord of Planar]

All these comments are consistent with duplicity and charlatanism.
Science can be explained simply and without resorting the arcane knowledge that merely obscures the topic.

Instead of making such outrageous claims, how about explaining how I am wrong.

All you seem to have is I am a heretic to your Bible and cult.

 

[Spock]

So... You once again have nothing but workd.

I can explain why things are like they are in words and back it up with science and math. You call it gibberish. I guess math is a foreign language to you.

Your "science" is obfuscation and unsupported by the general climate science community.
Sorry for your confusion.

 

[Spock]

Instead of making such outrageous claims, how about explaining how I am wrong.

You have not explained how anyone might think you are right.
I cannot educate you in communication. You method is highly suspect and intentionally opaque.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Your "science" is obfuscation and unsupported by the general climate science community.
Sorry for your confusion.

LOL...

Please explain how it is not supported.

The real charlatans are those you listen to. I am simply showing a real aspect of what the charlatans of AGW do not tell you.

You need to stop being a denier of science.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You have not explained how anyone might think you are right.

Anyone who can follow the text I showed and the math knows I am right. My math and saying what RE and GWP represent is not in dispute by any authority figure on the subject. Your ignorance does not make me wrong.

I cannot educate you in communication. You method is highly suspect and intentionally opaque.

LOL...

You are incapable of educating anyone smarter that Jar Jar Binks.

 

[Spock]

LOL...

Please explain how it is not supported.

The real charlatans are those you listen to. I am simply showing a real aspect of what the charlatans of AGW do not tell you.

You need to stop being a denier of science.

Where have you published this revolutionary interpretation of climate science and how has it been received by the science community?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Where have you published this revolutionary interpretation of climate science and how has it been received by the science community?

Why do you think that matters?

Is that part of your cults indoctrination to think only published scientists understand this stuff?

I do understand the material. Please point out any technical errors you see.

 

[Spock]

Anyone who can follow the text I showed and the math knows I am right. My math and saying what RE and GWP represent is not in dispute by any authority figure on the subject. Your ignorance does not make me wrong.

LOL...

You are incapable of educating anyone smarter that Jar Jar Binks.

We are done here.