2017 is the Second Warmest Year on Record

Give the scientific definition of climate or die would be threat.

Begging to give the scientific definition of climate or go away is just begging.

The fact that you keep on using the term climate while not been able to give the scientific definition of it is not exactly funny, it is hilarious.

 

In the context of AGW climate is the thermodynamic, precipitation, mass flux, etc. properties of the atmosphere and ocean and how the biosphere responds over large spartial and temporal domains.

I know you don't agree with the use of the word "climate" here. Fine, make up your own word. It'll be ridiculously stupid, but if it makes you happy I'll try to remember to use that word when I respond to you. Just don't use this "what is the definition of climate" ploy to divert away from what we are all talking about here.

 

I asked for the scientific definition.

Like there is the scientific definition of temperature.
who,
when
and how
defined temperature?

There is the scientific definition of climate,
who,
when,
and how defined climate?

and so
weight,
mass,
acceleration,
etc, etc, etc

The fact that IPCC, NASA, NAS and 142 academies of science keep on using terms climate and temperature while, with all powerful google at fingertips, not been able to give scientific definitions of climate and temperature is not exactly funny, it is hilarious.

 

Take a deep breath and walk around the block. It will be therapeutic.

 

There is nothing more therapeutic than a laughter at a hilarious comedy.

Thank you, guys, NASA, IPCC, NAS and 284 academies of science for providing me with one... evergoing

Mr. Trump, please double NASA climate research funding, any word it says is so therapeutic.... I cannot stop laughing... and IPCC with its flat standstill Earth.... double that...

The fact that IPCC, NASA, NAS and 368 academies of science keep on using terms climate and temperature while, with all powerful google at fingertips, not been able to give scientific definitions of climate and temperature is not exactly funny, it is hilarious.

 

Sounds like you need to walk around the block again.

 

Sorry to see that you think that something may be wrong with people laughing at hilarious comedy.

As I said, the fact that you keep on using the term climate while not been able to give the scientific definition of it is hilarious.

 

You claimed sulfate forcings decreased after 1940. The graph shows precisely the opposite. You're deflecting now.

Well, yes. As nobody said it was attributed solely to greenhouse gases, I wonder why you bring up the point. The graph is quite clear about the increase in solar forcing during that time being a significant driver.

On the basis of measurements of CO2 from ice core samples. That is, hard data.

Well, yes. That's because, again, the sun was much cooler, so even with higher GHG levels than today, the earth froze. And then it didn't unfreeze until GHG levels rose vastly higher. Your theory can't explain why the earth unfroze, hence it is wrong.

"But ... but ... you haven't disproved everything else with 100.0000% certainty!" isn't science, but it's all you have. We haven't disproved the theory that fairies change climate, but nobody takes that theory seriously. It's the same with your religious beliefs.

Science is putting forth a theory that successfully explains the observed data, and which makes successful predictions. The rational people have done that. Your cult hasn't even tried, because your cult's pseudoscience can't explain anything.

In that case, tell us what the cosmic ray theory is, and we'll discuss it. I have the feeling you don't even know, and that you're just waving your hands around again.

But if the pot of water is earth, it started getting warmer ... and then it got cooler again, even as it was being boiled. And look at you here, declaring how that makes sense. That's why your theory is laughed at.

Delusional. You've invented your own reality to conform with what your cult demands you believe.

Only in the oceans. And being that we've measured ocean temperatures for a long time, we'd have seen if it was there. It wasn't. The direct measurements say your theory is wrong, therefore it's wrong.

 

They don't. The hard data shows a climate sensitivity > 3.0C. The question is why do you push fraudulent claims of a low climate sensitivity, given that the hard data debunks such claims?

Half a doubling of CO2 has raised temp 1.0C. That means a Transient Climate Sensitivity of 2.0C. Total climate sensitivity has to be much bigger than that, yet you're making the bizarre claim that it's less than 1.5C. The hard data says you're totally wrong, but you don't care. You BELIEVE what your cult tells you, despite it being contradicted by the hard data.

 

No, I'm just a guy who understands that the error of a mean is the original error times (1 / sqrt(n)), where n is the number of samples.

That's basic statistics. You didn't understand, so you went off on a tirade about how the scientists who did understand that basic statistical concept were all frauds.

When I don't understand something, my first inclination is not to declare everyone else is a fraud. As I'm not consumed by narcissism, I understand how other people are often smarter than me, and that's very likely what I "feel" is wrong, therefore I should probably research the topic more. Give it a try.

 

Give it a try:
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...year-on-record.517168/page-23#post-1068462673

I repeated 3 times:

Your result is independent from accuracy of the thermometers, whether it is +-1.8 or +-20 or your finger under the wind.

I will not into a lengthy explanation why they want quality thermometers at weather stations.

I am sorry.

Don't have time.

 

I have been using the term climate sensitivity to CO2 which has a precise meaning.

 

Even the IPCC in AR5 acknowledges that the data based value is 1.5 deg C. It’s hard to take anyone seriously who claim that those who acknowledge that belong to a cult.

 

Hilarious.

One does not need to know the definition of climate to know the meaning of climate sensitivity.

You should apply for a job at NASA.

Can you define sensitivity?

 

Can you please look up the definition and stop embarrassing yourself ??

 

warmer than what its 15 degrees here

 

Hilarious.

You cannot post the definition of climate but claim to know the meaning of climate sensitivity.

You cannot post the definition of climate but claim to know the meaning of climate sensitivity.

And you think you have not embarrassing yourself over and over and over again.

 

You obviously know nothing about climate science. The units of the climate sensitivity to CO2 is degrees Centigrade.

 

#5
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-climate-change.521738/page-8#post-1068464869

Find: climate

or

Find: sensitivity


here:

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


http://www.dictionary.com/browse/centigrade

or here

https://www.thoughtco.com/celsius-vs-centigrade-3976012

or anywhere

Is climate measured in degrees Centigrade?

Hilarious.

But thank you for not being a moron, at least up to this point.

 

Please stop embarrassing yourself and Google “climate sensitivity of CO2”.

 

And so we go in circles:

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...year-on-record.517168/page-24#post-1068466186

 

No circle. Just a continuation of your ignorance of basic climate science.

 

It is 100% applicable. And it works. Just do the experiment and see for yourself. The standard mean error formula sigma/sqrt(N) works like a champ!

The naivety here is mind boggling.

No. That's not how it works.

No, my result is dependent on the RMS errors of the thermometers. It changes the result. What I'm saying is that you can have a really high RMS error on the instruments, but as long as you have a lot of readings the signal greatly overpowers the noise when taking the mean. You could convince yourself if you just did the experiment in Excel. When you do you'll get sigma/sqrt(N) as the standard error of the mean almost exactly.

Technically some of the incoming solar radiation is reflected back. Since the Sun only shines during the day that means the reflections happen during the day as well.

Greenhouse gases are transparent to incoming shortwave radiation but opaque to outgoing longwave radiation. That's just how the physics of the CO2 molecule works. More radiation comes in than goes out. The opposite happens with aerosols. They are reflective to shortwave radiation but transparent to longwave radiation. We've disrupted the balance with our activities. That doesn't mean this catastrophic. We'll adapt. We're really good at that. And maybe there's nothing we should or even could do about it now. But denying the science is being stupendously naive.

 

Then you repeated it 3 times incorrectly. Just put a bunch of random numbers in one column and inject errors into them in another column. Compare the means of the two columns. Repeat the experiment over and over again and log the results. The error in the mean of the two columns will be sigma/sqrt(N) where sigma is the standard deviation of the individual errors. Try it.