• Re: USAToday and Facebook? LOL - Delete Those Science Journal Website U

    From AlleyCat@21:1/5 to All on Mon Nov 13 06:23:51 2023
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, alt.politics.liberalism
    XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican

    On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 11:40:05 -0800, Alan says...

    Josh Willis - Principal Scientist

    Proof that THIS guy is NOT a "climate expert".

    "CO2 traps heat, it doesn't generate heat." - Josh Willis

    CO² traps as much "heat" as this guy is a "climate scientist".

    Semantics? Maybe, but CO² STILL doesn't trap "heat".

    "I are" correct on this.

    (if you don't get it now... you are an idiot)

    'B.S., Physics & Mathematics, University of Houston, Honors College,
    Houston, Texas (1996)

    Oh nooo...

    ... no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no!!!!

    So... NOT a climate scientist. He is NO expert, ala Rudy and the other hypocrats here.

    As Trevor Wilson would say, "**Not a climate scientist you idiot."

    M.S., Physics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California (1998)

    Oh nooo...

    ... no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no!!!!

    So... NOT a climate scientist. He is NO expert, ala Rudy and the other hypocrats here.

    As Trevor Wilson would say, "**Not a climate scientist you idiot."

    Ph.D., Oceanography, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California (2004)'

    Oh nooo...

    ... no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no!!!!

    So... NOT a climate scientist. He is NO expert, ala Rudy and the other hypocrats here.

    As Trevor Wilson would say, "**Not a climate scientist you idiot."

    =====

    From: Rudy Canoza <rc.@hendrie.con>
    Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 07:55:40 -0700
    "Fedotov, a doctor of geological and mineralogical sciences..."
    Not a climate expert.

    =====

    Apollo Astronaut Harrison Schmitt the only scientist to walk on the
    moon;

    **Not a climate scientist you idiot.

    But a "SCIENTIST", you fucking moron. To GET to the level of science they DO know, they probably HAVE to go through at LEAST Atmospheric Physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_physics

    A physicist, ESPECIALLY a Nobel winner IN Physics, will know MORE about climate, than the average "climate scientist", because he will have gone THROUGH climate and atmospherics physics, to get to his field of study and discipline.

    Apollo Astronaut Walt Cunningham from the first crew to ride the
    Saturn V rocket;

    **Not a climate scientist you idiot.

    Freeman Dyson The eminent Princeton physicist who postulated the
    Dyson sphere;

    **Not a climate scientist you idiot.

    Ross McKitrick and Steven McIntyre the Canadian researchers whose
    meticulous mathematical audit debunked Michael Mann?s infamous hockey
    stick graph;

    **Not a climate scientist you idiot.

    Anthony Watts The prominent meteorologist and creator of Watts Up
    With That;

    **Not a climate scientist you idiot.

    Judith Curry A climate scientist with over 130 peer-reviewed papers;

    **Judith Curry IS a climate scientist (finally, you found one).

    Fred Singer The genius scientist who established the weather
    satellite network;

    **A climate scientist:

    Roger Pielke, Jr. The professor who showed that extreme weather
    hasn't worsened and disaster costs declined;

    **Not a climate scientist.

    Will Happer The Princeton atomic physicist and pioneer in optics;

    **Not a climate scientist.

    =====

    I'm tired of you fucking whiny-babies screech NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST, when it's simply a matter of YOU not being able to refute what they say.

    I'm sure your guy is a capable scientist, physicist and Oceanographer, but if YOU'RE going to screech, "HE'S NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST", every time I quote someone who's VASTLY more qualified to speak to climate change or weather, I'm going to screech it right back.

    JOSH WILLIS IS NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST!

    He's a Principal Scientist. You and I probably know as much about climate as he does.

    =====

    Cap Allon's Electroverse Presents:

    * -40°C Hits Russia *
    Following yesterday's report that 90% of Russia is blanketed in snow, low temperatures are also proving early and pervasive.

    * Heavy Snow Impacting Majority Of Mongolia *
    Following heavy snowfall across East Asia -which saw record blizzards pound northern China- some 60% of Mongolia's 1.6 million km2 territory is now 'white', said the National Emergency Management Agency on Wednesday.

    * A Meter Of Early-Season Snow Hits The Alps *
    This week has seen tremendous snow pound the European Alps. "It is looking good," reports of planetski.eu. Totals have comfortably exceeded a meter (3.3 feet) in some parts, with the 'freezing level' dropping down to 1,500m.

    * 90% Of Russia Under Snow *
    According to the scientific director of Russia's Hydrometeorological Center, Roman Vilfand, snow is blanketing 90% of Russia. All of Siberia and the south of the Urals are covered in snow, including Transbaikalia; in the Khabarovsk Territory and Primorye, and average of 20cm (8 inches) has settled there; while cover of up to 8 cm lies in Sakhalin.

    * China's Record-Breaking Blizzards *
    Record-breaking early snowfall has pummeled northeastern China this week, cancelling flights, closing roads, halting trains and shutting schools.

    * Flakes Return To North America *
    A pair of winter storms will bring snow to two separate portions the U.S. Wednesday and into Thursday - the Northeast and the Colordao Rockies, with Alaska and Canada also copping healthy totals.

    * Snowstorms Kill Herders In Mongolia *
    As occurred last year, cold and snow is disrupting the seasonal migration of herders across the likes of northern China, Kazakhstan and Mongolia.

    * Heavy And Record-Breaking Snow Pounds China *
    Trains and buses have been cancelled and schools have been shut across northern China as the country's first substantial snowstorm of the season hits. Its weather service said the cold front is expected to deliver record-breaking snowfall.

    * Anchorage Blanketed In White *
    Anchorage also saw its first sizable snowfall Sunday through Monday, with more than 6 inches falling on Nov 5 alone.

    * New Study: Antarctica Has Cooled More Than 1C Since 1999
    Significant 21st century cooling in the Central Pacific, Eastern Pacific, and nearly all of Antarctica "implies substantial uncertainties in future temperature projections of CMIP6 models." - Zhang et al., 2023

    * U.S. Snow Cover At Record Levels
    America's first Arctic Blast of the season felled hundreds of low temperature records and resulted in the most extensive early-November snow cover in NOAA record books.

    * Historic November Cold Sweeps Argentina and Australia *
    A late-season cold spell has gripped swaths of South America, namely Argentina. The country is enduring its coldest November temperatures in recorded history.

    * Chilly October For Uruguay
    South America's early-November freeze is engulfing Uruguay, too, carrying on from what was an anomalously frigid October.
    October 2023 there average between -0.5C and -1C below the multidecadal norm.

    * Iceland's Seismic Swarm
    It was a cold October in Iceland, too.
    The temperature finished -0.6C below average, according to the Icelandic Met Office (IMO)

    * Northern Hemisphere Snow Mass 250 Gigatons Above 1982-2012 Average * Northern Hemisphere snow mass is enjoying a tremendous start to the season, aided in no small part by Russia. Some 80% of transcontinental Russia's 17.1 million km² land mass is currently under a blanket of snow.

    * South America Snow Extent At Record-Breaking Levels *
    While we're on the topic of snow, South America is worth a mention.
    Extent there has fired above all previous years (since the multisensor snow/ice mapping system became operational in 2005)

    * Low Temperature Records Continue To Fall, As Does The Snow *
    The past 24-hours have delivered additional headaches to the jittery, coffee- spitting "look, the weather is killing us!" climate brigade, as the United States felled hundreds-more low temperature records. From California to Pennsylvania, daily records have fallen (between 10:00 Nov 1 - 09:00 Nov 2 UTC)

    * Southern Africa Hit With Polar Blast -
    A late season polar blast has gripped Southern Africa of late, where temperatures in some areas plunged 20C in 24 hours.

    * Antarctica Suffers Rare November Cold (-60.4C) *
    October was anomalously-cold month across Antarctica, with averages ranging from -1C to -1.9C below the multidecadal norm. The freeze has now spilled into November, too.

    * Cold Records Slain Across U.S., More To Come *
    Adding to the host that fell over the weekend and Monday, hundreds more low temperature records were busted during the past 24-hours (10:00, Oct 31 - 09:00, Nov 1 UTC).

    * Consistently Cold In Vancouver *
    The cold has been pervasive north of the border, too - and for quite some time. Records for both cold and snow have been falling across Canada, particularly in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
    Colder-Than-Average October For Antarctica

    * Colder-Than-Average October For Antarctica *
    Antarctica is cooling, the data are clear. Continuing the trend, all of the Antarctic Plateau held well-below average during the month of October. At the South Pole Station, last month averaged at -52.8C (-63F), which is -1.9C below the multidecadal norm.

    * Aspen's "Snowmageddon!": 24 Inches In 24 Hours
    'Snowmass' is a ski resort located in the Town of Snowmass Village near Aspen, Colorado - it just got pounded. The resort received a whopping 2 feet of October snow in just 24-hour period, as shown by the measuring stick at: https://twitter.com/i/status/1718678654027227618

    * 2023, A Year Of Record Cold *
    People are quick to forget (if they ever know at all), and are blindly accepting of whatever narrative the establishment lays before them. Case in point is global boiling. Many, many all-time low temperature records have fallen this year, they've just gone unreported, and so the dutiful masses, the paint tossing tossers among us haven't been privy to the full picture.

    * Australia's Barrier Reef Is Still Great *
    Like the now stonewalled scares of extinct polar bears and an ice-free Arctic, the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) has gone the same way. MSM-peddled doomsday predictions have once again been proven pitifully inaccurate (yet we still can't question them).

    * 'Winter Deaths' Surge In Scotland *
    Cold should be cause for concern, more so than it is.
    Low temperatures kill 10x more than high temperatures and -for whatever reason- cold-related deaths are increasing globally - a fact the agenda-forwarding Lancet recently did their best to distort.

    * Record Cold And Snow Already Sweeping U.S. *
    Both daily as well as monthly cold records fell over the weekend, particularly across the NW. From Washington to Wisconsin, hundreds of benchmarks have been busted, including a host of monthly lows for The Evergreen State as well as Oregon.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Alan@21:1/5 to AlleyCat on Mon Nov 13 18:16:20 2023
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, alt.politics.liberalism
    XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican

    On 2023-11-13 04:23, AlleyCat wrote:

    On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 11:40:05 -0800, Alan says...

    Josh Willis - Principal Scientist

    Proof that THIS guy is NOT a "climate expert".

    "CO2 traps heat, it doesn't generate heat." - Josh Willis

    CO² traps as much "heat" as this guy is a "climate scientist".

    Semantics? Maybe, but CO² STILL doesn't trap "heat".

    "I are" correct on this.

    (if you don't get it now... you are an idiot)

    I get that you're not a climate scientist...


    'B.S., Physics & Mathematics, University of Houston, Honors College,
    Houston, Texas (1996)

    Oh nooo...

    ... no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no!!!!

    So... NOT a climate scientist. He is NO expert, ala Rudy and the other hypocrats here.


    As Trevor Wilson would say, "**Not a climate scientist you idiot."

    M.S., Physics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California
    (1998)

    Oh nooo...

    ... no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no!!!!

    So... NOT a climate scientist. He is NO expert, ala Rudy and the other hypocrats here.

    As Trevor Wilson would say, "**Not a climate scientist you idiot."

    Ph.D., Oceanography, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of
    California, San Diego, La Jolla, California (2004)'

    Oh nooo...

    ... no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no!!!!

    So... NOT a climate scientist. He is NO expert, ala Rudy and the other hypocrats here.

    As Trevor Wilson would say, "**Not a climate scientist you idiot."

    I don't know who "Trevor Wilson" would be...

    ..but I do know that climate science IS physics in action.

    "Research Interests

    Understanding the ocean's role in Greenland ice loss
    Estimating ocean warming and sea level rise on regional to global scales
    The role of the ocean in the Earth's climate system under global climate change"

    But this was about you claiming that USAToday couldn't be credible...

    ...because there was no scientist AT USAToday...

    ...in response to an article that quoted THREE scientists...

    ...two of whom you've very conveniently elided (look it up):

    Becky Alexander
    Ph.D. December 2002, Atmospheric Chemistry, University of California,
    San Diego, La Jolla, CA
    M.S. June 1999, Physical Chemistry, University of California, San Diego,
    La Jolla, CA
    B.A. with Honors May 1997, Chemistry, Colgate University, Hamilton, NY

    Sukrit Ranjan
    Harvard University
    Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Astronomy and Astrophysics
    2010 - 2017
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    S.B., Physics, History, Astronomy
    2006 - 2010

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From AlleyCat@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 14 07:10:54 2023
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, alt.politics.liberalism
    XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican

    How convenient you never bothered to refute what I said about Facebook.

    (whining like a good liberal bitch) but but but you deleeeeeted my words about Faaaacebooook!

    And a James Hansen...

    I notice you've removed everything by the two other scientists that
    USAToday quoted...

    Funny, how you took Josh Willis off your list, after I debunked his "CO2 traps heat, it doesn't generate heat," comment.

    Getting back to the topic, which was never refuted, just > or < or = or ? opinions thrown at it.

    One of the main problems with the hypothesized greenhouse effect is that it *violates the laws of thermodynamics*!

    The debate on this has raged endlessly, yet it is actually *rather simple to grasp*.

    IT'S THE CO2!

    It's NOT the CO2... it's the sun (radiative forcing), water vapour, albedo of clouds, land surfaces (including snow and ice), oceans, etc., Milankovitch cycles, volcanoes, aerosols, etc., etc., etc.

    https://i.imgur.com/ar52rH7.mp4

    0.04%ATM

    --------------------------------------------------
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | . <-----0.04% |
    | |
    | Yeah... that ONE |
    | clump of molecules |
    | "HEATS" our |
    | atmosphere |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    --------------------------------------------------

    1) As a starting point, consider sensate reality.

    Have you ever personally witnessed a situation where bringing a cold object closer to a hotter object, caused that hotter object's temperature to increase?

    2) If you heat your house with a furnace, does the house ever get *hotter than* the furnace's temperature?

    If you have heated water radiators, does the house get hotter than the temperature of the water?

    No... and no amount of insulation will cause this to happen, either.

    3) If you have a stove top at 200°C, and you place a pot of water on it to boil -- does this cause the stovetop to heat up?

    No... it actually will cause it to cool as the heat flows from the stovetop to the pot.

    4) There are three ways heat transfers: conduction, convection, and radiation.

    It is trivial to grasp with conduction that heat only flows from hot to cold.

    Any time you touch a colder object to a hotter one, heat flows out of the hotter one into the colder one.

    5) Heat only flows from hot to cold.

    If you take that hotter object, and touch it to an even hotter one -- the former object will *not* heat the even hotter one, even though it was heating the colder one before.

    Heat flows from hot to cold.

    6)With convection it is similarly trivial, as this is due to moving gases or liquids, and of course they will only get as hot as the surface that they are initially heated from due to conduction.

    People get tripped up with radiation. The principle is the same, however.

    7) Remember that IR is fundamentally the same as visible light, just at a different wavelength that our eyes can't see.

    If you take a mirror and reflect the light of a wall back at it, does the wall get brighter?

    Nope... in optics this is called conservation of étendue.

    8) Note that reflecting a light source's light (like a window) with a mirror onto a wall *will* cause the wall's brightness to increase.

    However that is not reflecting the wall's light back onto it, that's shining an additional light source onto it.

    =====

    So next time a climate alarmist insists that their models represent reality...

    Keep sensate, sensible reality in mind, as you yourself know it.

    Remember a frozen -18°C furnace could never heat a house no matter how much insulation it has...

    And simply stop believing!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From AlleyCat@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 14 07:10:52 2023
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, alt.politics.liberalism
    XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican

    On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:16:20 -0800, Alan says...

    On 2023-11-13 04:23, AlleyCat wrote:

    On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 11:40:05 -0800, Alan says...

    Josh Willis - Principal Scientist

    Proof that THIS guy is NOT a "climate expert".

    "CO2 traps heat, it doesn't generate heat." - Josh Willis

    CO² traps as much "heat" as this guy is a "climate scientist".

    Semantics? Maybe, but CO² STILL doesn't trap "heat".

    "I are" correct on this.

    (if you don't get it now... you are an idiot)

    I get that you're not a climate scientist...

    I get that you're not a climate scientist...

    I mustamissed the post where you listed YOUR credentials. ANYONE can research the web when trying to refute someone's post... that don't make you no expert, no.

    For the millionth time, liberal loon... you don't HAVE to be a climate scientist to QUOTE climate scientists, physicists and other scientists who KNOW climate science.

    I don't attack you OR your scientists, messenger... I attack your message. I attacked USAToday and Facebook, because quod bonum anseris... bonum est gander.

    You liberal faggots HATE when YOUR bullshit tactics are used on YOU, so, fuck off with your whining, and refute something, for ONCE.

    Only pussies attack the messengers of fact... fact, that YOU can't refute.

    THAT'S why you attack the messengers.

    https://i.imgur.com/ItDq4RF.mp4

    Only stupid people attack the messengers, because they CAN'T refute the facts given.

    Just refute what's posted.

    ===============================================================================

    White Liberals More Likely To Have A Mental Health Condition

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/22/white-liberals-more-likely- have-mental-health-cond/

    Apr 22, 2021 - Sixty-two percent of Whites who classify themselves as "very liberal" or "liberal" have been told by a doctor they have a mental health condition, as compared to 26% of conservatives and...

    =====

    White Liberals More Likely to Have Mental Health Problems... - Newsmax

    https://www.newsmax.com/politics/white-liberals-mental-health- study/2021/04/20/id/1018293/

    The Pew Study, Which The Washington Free Beacon notes was published last year but only gained attention in a recent article, showed that white liberals of all ages were more likely to be diagnosed with a mental health condition than moderates or conservatives, with the disparity particularly pronounced among those aged 18-29, according to evie...

    =====

    Study: Young White Liberals More Likely to Have Mental Health Problems

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/04/22/study-young-white-liberals- more-likely-to-have-mental-health-problems/

    Apr 22, 2021 - When sex and age were factors, 56.3 percent of white women between the ages of 18 and 29 and who labeled themselves as "liberal," said they had been given a mental health diagnosis, compared to 27.3 percent of conservatives in the same categories and 28.4 percent of moderates:

    =====

    62% of "liberal" or very "liberal" whites have a mental health condition

    https://www.independentsentinel.com/62-of-liberal-or-very-liberal-whites-have- a-mental-health-condition/

    According to a Pew Research Center survey, 62% percent of Whites who classify themselves as "very liberal" or "liberal" has been told by a doctor they have a mental health condition. Only 26% of conservatives and 20% of moderates have been told they have such a condition, the study found.

    =====

    Pew Study: White Liberals Disproportionately Suffer From Mental Illness...

    https://wibc.com/108211/pew-study-white-liberals-disproportionately-suffer- from-mental-illness/

    White women, ages 18-29, who identified as liberal were given a mental health diagnosis from medical professionals at a rate of 56.3%, as compared to 28.4% in moderates and 27.3% in conservatives. Zach Goldberg, a Ph.D. candidate in political science, consolidated the study's info in a set of visuals and posted them to a thread on Twitter.

    SCIENCE: White Libs More Likely To Have Mental Health Problems

    https://freebeacon.com/politics/white-libs-mental-health/

    Within this demographic, 34 percent of liberals reported having mental health problems, compared with 22 percent of moderates and 16 percent of conservatives. Zach Goldberg, the doctoral...

    =====

    White Liberals Twice as Likely to be Diagnosed with Psychological Problems

    https://www.hennessysview.com/p/psychologic-disorders-white-liberals

    Nearly 1 in 2 (45.9%) of white liberals have been diagnosed with mental health disorders. White liberals of all ages are more than twice as likely as conservatives of any age to suffer from mental health disorders. White liberals are almost twice as likely as non-white liberals to be diagnosed with mental health problems.

    =====

    6 Reasons Why Liberalism IS A Mental Disorder (LOL) - The Political Insider

    https://thepoliticalinsider.com/6-reasons-why-liberalism-can-be-considered-a- mental-disorder/

    In 2005, Michael Savage famously wrote a book titled, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, the subject of which is self-explanatory. Additionally, Dr. Lyle Rossiter, a board-certified clinical psychologist, wrote a book in which he diagnosed the ideology of the left as a tangible mental illness.

    =====

    Personality Traits, Mental Illness, and Ideology

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/unique-everybody- else/202103/personality-traits-mental-illness-and-ideology

    specifically, surveys on the " big five " traits of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience have found that people identifying as politically...

    =====

    Study claims over 50% of liberal women under 30 have mental health...

    https://theliberal.ie/study-claims-over-50-of-liberal-women-under-30-have- mental-health-issues-men-and-women-with-liberal-views-more-likely-to-be- mentally-unwell/

    Study claims over 50% of liberal women under 30 have mental health issues, men and women with liberal views more likely to be mentally unwell April 24, 2021 - 12:01 Gerard Clarke Irish News

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From AlleyCat@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 14 07:10:56 2023
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, alt.politics.liberalism
    XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican

    How convenient you never bothered to refute what I said about Facebook.

    (whining like a good liberal bitch) but but but you deleeeeeted my words about Faaaacebooook!

    And a James Hansen...

    I notice you've removed everything by the two other scientists that
    USAToday quoted...

    Funny, how you took Josh Willis off your list, after I debunked his "CO2 traps heat, it doesn't generate heat," comment.

    Getting back to the topic, which was never refuted, just > or < or = or ? opinions thrown at it.

    One of the main problems with the hypothesized greenhouse effect is that it *violates the laws of thermodynamics*!

    The debate on this has raged endlessly, yet it is actually *rather simple to grasp*.

    IT'S THE CO2!

    It's NOT the CO2... it's the sun (radiative forcing), water vapour, albedo of clouds, land surfaces (including snow and ice), oceans, etc., Milankovitch cycles, volcanoes, aerosols, etc., etc., etc.

    https://i.imgur.com/ar52rH7.mp4

    0.04%ATM

    --------------------------------------------------
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | . <-----0.04% |
    | |
    | Yeah... that ONE |
    | clump of molecules |
    | "HEATS" our |
    | atmosphere |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    --------------------------------------------------

    17) The common rebuttal is that the Earth is not a closed system, it must be taken together with the Sun and outer space.

    As the Sun is around 5500°C and outer space -270°C, they argue the Earth's temperature can be anywhere in between.

    @ClimateBook
    https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf?

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-fJvC7WcAAQd0N?format=png&name=900x900

    18) Yet this is misleading as this is not what the model is based on!

    The model **first reduced** the Sun to the equivalent of a -18°C object.

    This caused the surface to reach -18°C only. Then this cold -18°C boot-strapped itself up to +15°C by the magical backradiation.

    19) It would be like trying to heat your house with a -18°C furnace.

    No amount of fiberglass insulation or low-emissivity windows will bring that house anywhere near +15°C.

    20) Proponents will argue that the climate models don't use this -18°C value, they use the actual insolation.

    That may be so, but the core principle - that back-radiation can cause a surface to heat up past its own temperature - is at the very heart of the models.

    21) As an obvious example, consider the model in Hansen 1983 (https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1983/1983_Hansen_ha05900x.pdf?), which formed the basis of Hansen's testimony to Congress in 1988, "a watershed moment in the movement to combat climate change" (https://inquirer.com/opinion/climate- change-james-hansen-testimony-35-years-20230710.html#loaded?).

    22) In one model run, instead of modeling the Sun rising and setting, hitting a peak of 120°C - equivalent energy at day...

    They set it as a constant 5°C-equivalent object. As if it were fixed in the air, around 1 hour after sunrise.

    And their result was a *hotter Earth*!

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F-fTMW7WkAABrgy?format=png&name=small

    23) That's because the models have this amplifying effect of the backradiation built in to their core.

    They have it built-in, so of course they show CO2 causes warming.

    The IPCC does not even accept models anymore that don't meet this criteria!

    Did you know?

    The IPCC provides "Criteria for Selecting Climate Scenarios".

    Criterion 1? That they *agree with the existing models the IPCC already uses*.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F9xqqF_XkAAUyAl?format=png&name=900x900

    24) The problem is, this back-radiative effect has **never been proven or experimentally demonstrated**.

    The reason is obvious: it's because it's physically impossible.

    Examining how an actual greenhouse works is highly informative in this regard

    It is well-known that the greenhouse effect *is a misnomer* - actual greenhouses do not work this way.

    What is overlooked is the fact that they do not is *direct evidence against the strength of the greenhouse effect*!

    So next time a climate alarmist insists that their models represent reality...

    Keep sensate, sensible reality in mind, as you yourself know it.

    Remember a frozen -18°C furnace could never heat a house no matter how much insulation it has...

    =====

    So next time a climate alarmist insists that their models represent reality...

    Keep sensate, sensible reality in mind, as you yourself know it.

    Remember a frozen -18°C furnace could never heat a house no matter how much insulation it has...

    And simply stop believing!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From AlleyCat@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 14 07:10:55 2023
    XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics, alt.politics.liberalism
    XPost: alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics.usa.republican

    How convenient you never bothered to refute what I said about Facebook.

    (whining like a good liberal bitch) but but but you deleeeeeted my words about Faaaacebooook!

    And a James Hansen...

    I notice you've removed everything by the two other scientists that
    USAToday quoted...

    Funny, how you took Josh Willis off your list, after I debunked his "CO2 traps heat, it doesn't generate heat," comment.

    Getting back to the topic, which was never refuted, just > or < or = or ? opinions thrown at it.

    One of the main problems with the hypothesized greenhouse effect is that it *violates the laws of thermodynamics*!

    The debate on this has raged endlessly, yet it is actually *rather simple to grasp*.

    IT'S THE CO2!

    It's NOT the CO2... it's the sun (radiative forcing), water vapour, albedo of clouds, land surfaces (including snow and ice), oceans, etc., Milankovitch cycles, volcanoes, aerosols, etc., etc., etc.

    https://i.imgur.com/ar52rH7.mp4

    0.04%ATM

    --------------------------------------------------
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | . <-----0.04% |
    | |
    | Yeah... that ONE |
    | clump of molecules |
    | "HEATS" our |
    | atmosphere |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    --------------------------------------------------

    9) Infrared light works the same.

    Consider that aluminum foil reflects 90%+ of the IR coming onto it. It's basically a mirror but for infrared radiation.

    If you hold a sheet of aluminum foil in front of you, does your own body's heat, reflected back at you, warm you up?

    10) If you step into a small aluminum-foil-lined closet, would your body's reflected IR now cause your body to heat up way past its normal temperature?

    Another way to picture this is consider a mirror-lined closet. When you step in, you see your mirror image repeated.

    11) Each reflection is a bit dimmer.

    In terms of IR, it's similar to standing in a crowd of people, albeit each person a bit cooler than the next.

    The very most this heat transfer can do is equalize your body temperature to your neighbors'... not heat you up past that.

    12) Proponents will argue that the climate models don't use this -18°C value, they use the actual insolation.

    That may be so, but the core principle - that back-radiation can cause a surface to heat up past its own temperature - is at the very heart of the models.

    Back to the greenhouse effect, the simplest model, taken to be fundamentally correct, is a flat one-layer model.

    The sun's actual energy, 1360 W/m^2, is divided by 4 to represent a spherical 'average'.

    This is horribly unphysical ??

    As we have shown, the IPCC models of higher CO2 levels yielding higher surface temps have *never been experimentally validated*.

    But it gets worse! They are based on 1D models of an unrevolving flat Earth *that violate the very laws of physics*.

    13) After accounting for reflected sunlight, we're left with ~240 W/m^2 hitting the surface.

    This is equivalent to the Earth being heated by a -18°C object!

    (For comparison, the full insolation after reflection is equivalent to an 86°C object.)

    In the simplest model and explanation, they then introduce a single 'atmosphere layer', which absorbs the IR from the ground and does not let it through.

    Sound familiar? It's directly analogous to the pane of glass in a real greenhouse.

    14) The model then explains that the Earth, with no atmosphere, would reach only this -18°C.

    What does the atmosphere do? It gets heated by this -18°C object, back-radiates IR down, and...

    This causes the surface to heat up more! Up to +15°C!

    That's 1.6x the energy input!

    100-29 is 71% absorbed from the Sun. Temperature of surface is 115% of the initial (unreflected) light. 115/71 is 1.62, that's 62% more.

    15) This model is very simplified, but is taken to be correct in its fundamentals, and is the very basis of all modern climate models!

    Yet the problem is readily apparent. As we have seen, a -18°C object cannot cause anything to heat up past -18°C!

    16) If we place a -18°C ice cube inside an aluminum-lined box -- the insides of the box will not heat up to +15°C!

    Even though 90%+ of the IR the ice cube emits is back-radiated, far more than the ~50% in the model!

    =====

    So next time a climate alarmist insists that their models represent reality...

    Keep sensate, sensible reality in mind, as you yourself know it.

    Remember a frozen -18°C furnace could never heat a house no matter how much insulation it has...

    And simply stop believing!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)