Stop the "Climate Change is Real" brow beating

Actually, I am well aware that the reason denier graphs are always different from the originals is because someone, in the denier community, takes copies of the originals, modifies them to fit denier's obsurdities, and then distributes them to the gullible, apparently yourself included.

 

The nuance isn't escaping me at all. Again, you need to make this point to the people who are arguing there is no global warming, like in the threads I cited (did you post in those threads there is no global warming?) not to people who are responding to such arguments.

 

And of course, you have some proof of that right? I mean, it's such a revelation, truly you should have to show your work here. We'll wait....

 

Do you have *anything* of import to offer?

My hypotheses was that the temperature mean in the central US was going up because of more warm days rather than more record high temperatures. The 15 minute weather data I have collected 24/7/365 over the past five years have confirmed my hypothesis. My analysis of humidity data shows no long term increase in near earth humidity. My analysis of temperature data shows the mean going up while the number of days over 100degF are actually going down each year. That is confirmed by independent data collected in Iowa that shows fewer and fewer record high temps each year over the past five years.

Instead of the AGW religionists whining about Earth becoming Venus perhaps they should be celebrating the ability to grow more food for starving humanity!

 

I do, every day. Thanks for ignoring content you "think" you won't want to read in the first place. I would simply suggest that you're choice of terms is how you're effectively failing in the conversation. Folks don't think that climate doesn't change, or that it could get warmer, or cooler. What the conversation is truly about is the cult of AGW and it's dishonest and frankly shoddy scientific underpinnings. I can, without hesitation, agree that anthropogenic global warming is, actually man made. But probably not in the way you would accept. I can actually prove, and have, that the demonstration of warming is man made. As in, the data that doesn't support actual temperature increase, but with man's help, and "smoothing techniques" has "demonstrated this "warming" that you seem to believe in .

 

Back in the 1970's it was predicted that concentrations of CO2 would reach 360 ppm by the year 2000. The actual consentration was closer to 369 ppm and has been rising ever since.

 

Stop the "Climate Change is Real" brow beating

Hold on a sec here.....you folks use the "The climate has always been changing" line all the time, and now your telling everyone else not to?

 

My guess is that you have absolutely no idea of the photosynthesis cycle.

Do you know why greenhouses pump CO2 into their hot houses? Do you think it is to raise the temperature?

 

What do you suppose causes warmer days? Why is it that solar radiation is at its greatest at noon but the hottest part of the day occurs around 4-5pm, even in the winter when the sun is setting? Why are nights getting warmer at a greater rate than daytime?

Central to the physical geography science is not that greenhouse gases cause a rise in temperature, but rather that greenhouse gases prevent as much cooling at night.

The greenhouse gases are like a blanket. Your blanket does not warm you up as much as it keeps your body generated heat from escaping. Adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is similar to adding more filling to your blanket.

 

You don't even know if the mean is going up because of a longer growing season or if it is going up because of more record temperatures!

And you question me on discovering what nature is really doing?

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING OF IMPORT TO OFFER?

 

No, I said the exact formulation is not informative because it is time and state dependent. For example, a 1 percent change in sodium ions within a neuron when the neuron is on the threshold of an action potential will cause that neuron to fire generating 95 milivolt change; however, a 1 percent change in sodium ions at resting membrane potential will generate little change. This is an example of nonlinearity and why your question is not informative. The fact that the system is dynamical makes the assertion that a small percent change is insignificant. Depending on the state of the system, a small percentage change can have a large or small effect; thus, a changing (dynamic) system will produce different results depending on the state of the dynamics. Climate is exactly this type of system. Just saying no thanks is not a good argument against it. As I stated before, due to dynamic nonlinearities, claiming that small percentage change is insignificant is not true.

 

Perfect. So, show us the level at which the "small change to the system" trips it. We'll wait. Or, wait. provide a linear scale that documents the amount of trip capacity required over time. Again we'll wait.

 

CO2 is not a fertilizer. Many, many experiments have shown that plants gain most of their mass by absorbing it from the air. Thus as plants 'breathe' in CO2, they use the carbon for their structure and expel the excess oxygen. In a closed space, over time, the air becomes more and more ogygen rich and carbon poor. That is why CO2 is added to greenhouses.

Over the past three years, as records are being set for warmest year ever, here in Oregon, we have been seeing record crop yields. Even the test tree farms that Oregon State manages have been showing record growth. After a conversation with someone at the state extension office, the record growth has more to do with temperature increases than CO2.

 

Again, you don't even understand the term "warmer"!

Please provide a definition of what you understand "warmer" to mean. Perhaps we can then have a conversation!

You don't even understand how the greenhouse "blanket" works, do you? It isn't a blanket.

When water vapor and CO2 absorb IR radiation it also emits IR radiation. It does so in all directions. Some is re-radiated back to earth which heats the earth and then gets re-radiated again. It simply doesn't matter whether this is done during the day or at night.

As for when the temperature max is reached during the day that has to do with convection in the earth itself and the heating of the earth. As the earth is heated there is a time lag for when it reaches its maximum IR radiation - which is when max temps are reached.

Warmer nights happen when warmer daytime temps happen. Only so much radiation can be emitted during night. My data shows that the trend for max nighttime temps is *not* going up, just like the trend for max daytime temps is not going up.

Stop quoting AGW bible verses and actually learn some science!

 

Apparently the abstraction eludes you.

 

Warmth, which is heat, is the motion of microscopic and submicroscopic particles. More motion, more heat. Less motion, less heat.

Infrared radiation is not heat.

Ask a physics professor.

In a microwave oven the radiation is not what heats your food. But rather it causes water molecules to spin and vibrate. This is what heats your food.

 

These critical points are active fields of research, but they depend on the dynamics of the system. There are models for it, but i used the neuron example better because it is simplier to explain. These models are continually being validiated and tested.

The odd thing is you seem to accept my assertion and then ask for an exact point of no return. When most knowledgeable people see this, and ask how can we not add to this. Understanding that climate is a dynamic nonlinear system should indicate to you that there are instabilities within the system and that small changes can have large effects. Additionally, you are still sticking to your strawman arguments. If I produce a critical value, you will just dismiss it. You have no good argument against it other than saying it is a small change or that models are not facts. Those are not meaningful arguments. Thus, like most people who disbelieve this, you refuse to educate yourself. You just cling to your beliefs and do not try to challenge them.

 

It is not that it gets warmer at nigh but that it doesn't cool down. One of the problems with this line of thinking are twofold. One, more and more construction in and around the temperature stations retain daytime heat. Two, this ONLY shows in the more problematic land/ocean temperature record but not in the troposphere where the warming is supposed to occur first.

What that means is that the heat island effect is skewing the surface temperature record and no, they do not adjust for it adequately and in fact have fought the skeptics against adjusting for it.

 

The troposphere is warming. The original estimates we're wrong and adjusted. Here is a layman's explanation with links to the articles it is referencing:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

 

Sorry, the failed cartoonists alarmist blog (un)Skepticalscience is not a good place to get real info. Some of the worst players contribute and it is a communication experiment. It has the appearance of credibility but much of the data is old or misrepresented.

 

Here is the article they reference:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/309/5740/1548

It is from one of the most highly rated peer review journals. Please cite an article with evidence that this adjustment is wrong. Preferably from a peer reviewed journals.

P.S. I cite layman's websites because most people on this forum don't bother to read scientific articles.

 

BTW: Peer review is not what you think it is. It just means a paper was accepted for publication. It does not mean that it is right. In fact, most peer review papers never stand the test of time.

Spatiotemporal Divergence of the Warming Hiatus over Land Based on Different Definitions of Mean Temperature

 

Oh they don't? So the Hodgekin and Huxley model for action potentials have been refuted. I can list thousands of articles that still hold true. As a researcher, I am part of the peer review process. I submit articles for peer review and I am a reviewer. What is your experience with the peer review process? How do you know MOST articles do not stand the time?

It seems you are just basing your assertions on an ignorant view. You generalize and hope no one will catch you.

 

it says one of the factors for the cooling trend is observational errors

i realize you're dishonest

 

Laughable.