Arctic hits record low

Yes Max, yes, it is so simple!
And it is very entertaining to see that 100% of overwhelming majorities of the scientific community don’t get basic simple things.

All heat the Earth gets from the sun it gives away to the infinite cold Cosmos.

All heat any part of the earth gets from the Sun during every single day it gives away every single night; all heat any part of the earth gets from the Sun during every single summer it gives away every single winter, REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH CO2 IS IN THE ATMOSPHERE! even if the atmosphere is made 100% out of CO2.(The constant of heat dissipation is omitted).

That’s why 100% of overwhelming majorities of the scientific community looking for an average Temperature of the Globe are either illiterate or scumbags or both. The only way to warm the Globe is either to change Temperature of the Sun or to bring the Earth closer to the Sun or to change Temperature of the infinite Cosmos. (The constant of the heat from the Earth core is omitted). That’s why 100% of overwhelming majorities of the scientific community talking about any other possibility of warming the Globe in any other way are either illiterate or scumbags or both.

As an example you can look at the Moon - whatever is gained by one side is lost by another side while the average T of the moon (which is as meaningless as average Temperature of the Earth) remains the same.

Atmosphere just lets us not to fry in summer and not to turn into ice in winter.

You may look at it as at insulation in walls of your house. Then we are talking about a rate of heat transfer, R value of the insulation.

It is not difficult to estimate that even if the content of CO2 jumped a hundred fold total change in the rate of heat transfer through the atmosphere would not make days hotter and nights colder ( and that is the only thing it can do) in any noticeable way or measure.

 

I would like y'all to explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury? Mercury is much closer to the Sun. Is it possible that the thick atmosphere of Venus traps heat? If not, please use your superior knowledge in science to explain this phenomenon.

 

Not explaining why Venus is hotter than Mercury does not invalidate a single word I made.
If somebody does not see from my post why and is interested in a simple and clear explanation, I can explain, it is very simple and again it just shows that overwhelming majorities of the scientific community thinking that:1. not explaining why Venus is hotter than Mercury somehow may invalidate a single word I made.
2. it is because of CO2
are either illiterate or scumbags or both.
I wouldn't waste time explaining anything to those who are not interested in anything except for pushing their blind religious beliefs.

 

So, you have no answer. I just thought with your superior intellect you could come up with something. But you are right. You don't even have to respond in any way.

 

Reading comprehension problems?

 

They're quite correct. You, however, failed very badly at the most basic things.

Obviously totally wrong, given that the night side of the earth doesn't plunge to absolute zero. Most heat is retained in the earth's climate system overnight.

As your premise there was laughably wrong, everything you derived from it was a total botch.

Someone not consumed with raging narcissism would think to themselves "Hmm. The whole planet says I'm wrong. Being I am not a certified supergenius, that means I'm probably wrong."

You didn't.

You don't know more than the whole planet. You're just a guy on the internet who read some crank blogs.

 

Colder means Warmer.
Did you forget to put your Double Think hat on?

 

No, it didn't. Your source just made up that fake fact.

IR flux to space has actually dropped a bit. That's why the earth is heating up.

Then you can surely link us to the actually data showing that.

So do so. You source certainly didn't do it. Your source just claimed it was so, and then didn't back up the claim.

Where you fail is thinking that the edge of the atmosphere, the part radiating to space, is getting hotter. It's not.

 

Only deniers constantly make the claim that colder means warmer

Nobody knows why they get so confused. They don't seem quite rational. All the normal people know that warmer is warmer, and colder is colder. It's not complicated, but deniers are just unable to grasp it.

 

Yes, most global warming fanatics are in deep denial of the obvious.

 

are you twelve?

Giving away all heat received from the sun to the absolute zero does not mean plunging to absolute zero.
Not giving away all heat received from the sun to the absolute zero does exactly mean that starting a few thousand years ago the Earth would be as hot as hell today, which as an idiotic suggestion as everything else produced by the overwhelming majorities of the scientific community.

Heat cannot be retained.

http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/arctic-hits-record-low.499198/page-11#post-1067236764
Any other statements from aggressive arrogance and ignorance?

 

No single event can be definitively linked to warming. It is a trend that involves complex changes.

Once again your post is nonsense. If you want to understand the climate, get a freaking education and quite playing doctor.

 

Here I quoted one of fundamental laws of nature directly and unambiguously saying that heat can NEVER be trapped, contained, stored, fed back, reflected back. You have raised no objections, but you still believe scientists, but not me, not the law, not your own eyes.

http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/arctic-hits-record-low.499198/page-11#post-1067236764

Here I applied the law to explain that the overage T of Earth wouldn’t change (no process of warming can be initiated) even if all atmosphere is changed 100% to CO2. You have pointed to no error, you have raised no objections, but you still believe the idiocy scientists tell you.

http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/arctic-hits-record-low.499198/page-12#post-1067253516

Now you are asking the idiotic question why Venus is hot.

But you yourself refuse to explain by what twisted thinking I should answer this question and how if I don’t it can disprove a single word I said.

Do you understand the difference between the state of being hot and the process of warming? If Venus was in the process of warming, then the question could be not idiotic. The third time – how refusing answer totally irrelevant and idiotic question can somehow disprove even a single word I said?


OK, I will explain:

Your beloved idiot scientists are asking why Venus is hot and Mercury it is not. They assume that Venus and Mercury have the same mass, the same composition, the same reactions/processes in their cores, the same amount of produced mechanical work if any and they had the same content of heat at the moment of their formation; under no other assumption one can expect Mercury to be more hot. As simple as that. I can cut it to 3 words – scientists are idiots. I am not surprised anymore when I find out that the idiots do not know that since the formation of the solar system it has been cooling, and it is quite possible that some time ago the Earth looked very much like Venus today.

Any more questions from arrogance and ignorance?

 

No, you just said it all.

 

You have been duped by fossil fuel industry propaganda. I posted a link to NASA where the climate scientists there provide an run down of the evidence based science that confirms the fact that it is the 46% higher excess CO2 mankind has put into the air that is very definitely responsible for the current abrupt rapid warming far beyond the limits of natural variability. Your rejection and denial of science in favor of your moronic and very fraudulent denier cult myths and pseudo-science is what you should be embarrassed about, as it is an intellectual disgrace. You obviously are not only extremely ignorant about science, but also filled with misinformation, crackpot conspiracy theories and lies fed to you by the fossil fuel industry's propaganda pushers.

LOLOLOL.....no, of course not, because that is a ridiculous lie that only deluded denier cultists are ignorant enough to fall for.

In the real world, the reality of human caused global warming is based on both the laws of physics, mountains of hard physical evidence, and the scientific research done in the real world for many decades by tens of thousands of scientists all around the world, who have independently and virtually unanimously concluded that AGW is very real, mankind's carbon emissions are causing the warming of the Earth, and that warming and its consequent climate changes, ice melts and sea level rises, pose great dangers to our human civilizations and our agricultural systems, and to our planet's biosphere and delicate ecological balances.

Why should I be curious? It is just more of your rather demented denier cult bullcrap. You are so afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect, you foolishly imagine you know more and understand science better than all of the real scientists in the world. You are laughably and completely wrong!

Sunlight warms up the entire surface of the Earth.....the land surfaces, the vegetation, the ice, and the oceans and lakes, penetrating over 300 feet into water and heating the surface layers of water. The ocean surface waters are mostly warmer than the air above them, causing the water to transfer heat to the atmosphere. The infrared back-radiation from the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere heats the land and ice quite well, but infrared only penetrates a short distance into water. This is enough however to heat the thin 'surface skin' on top of the oceans where heat energy is actually transferred to the air....and this slows the transfer of heat energy from the oceans to the air, thus keeping more heat in the oceans, warming them even more and driving the heat to greater depths.

Just this one ignorant, deceitful, bullcrap filled post of yours destroys whatever credibility you may have imagined you had.




...

LOLOLOLOLOL.....crackpot denier cult conspiracy theories and lies with no connection to reality.

Pretty near the entire world scientific community accepts and affirms the reality of human caused global warming. It is only in your cult of reality denial that anyone doubts this.

In the real world, almost all of the scientific societies and organizations and the National Academies of Science of every country all affirm the conclusions of the climate scientists that mankind's activities have increased CO2 levels by (so far) 46% and this is what driving the rapid abrupt warming the planet is experiencing.

You very obviouly have no idea how you are being bamboozled, which is sad since it is the billionaires at the top of the fossil fuel industry who are driving this assault on well verified science. They push pseudo-science and lies because their hundreds of billions of dollars per year profit streams will greatly diminish if the world restricts or taxes carbon emissions, and if the corporations' oil, gas and coal reserves, the supposed value of which supports the fossil fuel industry's high stock prices, wind up under legal restrictions that keep them in the ground where they belong, as they should be, those stock prices will plummet taking oil and coal barron's wealth with them. And that is why they rounded up a bunch of ignorant rightwingnut rubes and turned them into your little cult of AGW denial.

Complete bullcrap!

The predictions in the IPCC reports have turned out to be fairly accurate, if a bit conservative. Warming and its consequent climate changes are happening even faster than they predicted.

Climate models accurately predicted global warming when reflecting natural ocean cycles | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian
Jul 21, 2014 - A new paper led by James Risbey just out in Nature Climate Change takes a clever approach to evaluating how accurate climate model temperature predictions have been while getting ...
***
Climate models are accurately predicting ocean and global warming | John Abraham | Environment | The Guardian
Jul 27, 2016 - Climate models are accurately predicting ocean and global warming. A new study from ... The study was just published in the journal Ocean Sciences; a draft of it is available here. In this study
...
***
Climate models are even more accurate than you thought | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian
Jul 31, 2015 - Denial101x climate science success stories lecture by Dana Nuccitelli. ... And those models predictthat unless we take serious and immediate action to reduce human carbon pollution, global ...
***
[PDF]How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate Change? - National Ocean Service
...credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. ... by using them to predict weather and make seasonal forecasts. These models demonstrate skill in such forecasts, ...
***
Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative - Scientific American
Dec 6, 2012 - Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative ... scientists say, because the organization is charged specifically with advising policy makers on the most relevant, accurate climate science.



And BTW, scientists found the so-called 'Tropical Tropospheric Hot Spot'.

Climate scientists find elusive tropospheric hot spot
PhysOrg
May 14, 2015
Researchers have published results in Environmental Research Lettersconfirming strong warming in the upper troposphere, known colloquially as the tropospheric hotspot. The hot has been long expected as part of global warming theory and appears in many global climate models.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-scientists-elusive-tropospheric-hot.html#jCp

 

Sure it does, being that all the heat on earth comes from the sun, except for insignificant amounts of geothermal heat. If all that heat goes away, the temperature must plunge to near absolute zero. Since that doesn't happen, your deranged and hilariously stupid theory is obviously wrong.

It would risk my sanity if I tried to decode that gibberish. As Nietzche sort of said, when you gaze into the stupid, the stupid gazes back into you.

Of course it can. If I heat up a cup of coffee, it retains heat for a while. Your sentence is so vague that it's meaningless, being it makes no mention of time scales.

In order to pull of the condescending act, you have to actually be smart. That's why I can do it. You can't, and your belligerent ignorance routine won't work on people willing to call your bluff.

 

I don't even know.
Are you 4th grader?
The earth is as warm as it is because of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core.
It is not my sentence it is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
It is not my theory but application of the 2nd law.
Your cup of coffee is the Earth (analogy). It started as a melted ball of fire and has been cooling since.
If it was not for the sun the earth would have been... would have been a collection of icy crystals.
If it was not for the infinite Cold Cosmos the earth would still be a ball of fire.
But it is not the reality.
The reality is the Thermodynamic equilibrium exactly as I described - when all heat received be the Sun is given away to the Cosmos.
Only a new source of heat ( fire under your cup of coffee) or a new heat sink can brake this equilibrium and cause warming or cooling until the next equilibrium is reached.
The idea that changing atmosphere can do it as illiterate and idiotic as all other ideas produced by overwhelming majorities of the scientific community. May be you are not a 4th grader, but one of the majorities because the level of their knowledge and understanding of physical reality is no different from one of a 4th grader.
Thermodynamics does not look a time scales, but at direction of a process.
Of course, it is the feature of a public forum that a bot livefree will be crapping any treat about AGW with the same posts as 7 years ago called by the same words, and a 4th grader will be spewing all insults and rubbish learned from cartoons.
It says don't throw you pearls to 4th graders and mindless bots.

 

So, a greenhouse doesn't work? And a thermos does not retain heat for hours?

 

Just your usual ignorant deluded denier cult bullcrap with no connection to the real world.

 

Given what you've shown us here, it's clear that most 4rth graders have a better grasp of science and logic than you do.

Geothermal heat flux is estimated at 47 terawatts.

Solar flux is estimated at 174,000 terawatts.

A 4rth grader could tell you that 174,000 is bigger than 47. Geothermal heat has a negligible effect on the earth's temperature. Your crank theory is something that any adult should be ashamed to put forth.

The second law has zilch to do with the fact that geothermal heating has no effect on climate. That's a nonsense red herring on your part.

So, according to your logic, the earth is doomed to freeze solid, period, because all that matters is the loss of the geothermal heat. That would be why your theory gets laughed at.

Wait, you just told us that only geothermal heat mattered. Can you try to be consistent with your insane theories?

You don't understand the meaning of the terms you use. That much is clear. You just chant them like a mantra, as a defense against logic and reason.

There's nothing wrong with being slow, but there is something wrong with your belligerent ignorance routine. You need to accept your intellectual limitations, and not be so jealous of the smarter people.

 

It is not my logic. It is the second law. even your your twisted like pretzel wiki says so https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe.
And BTW the Sun is "doomed to freeze solid" too .
http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_a_universal_tendency.html
One would think it is kind of a commonplace knowledge...
Otherwise you have not addressed a thing I said.

 

The Dunning-Kruger Effect has you wrongly imagining that you are brilliant.....but it is dead obvious to everyone, except possibly your fellow denier cultists, who are equally ignorant and confused, that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and you very obviously don't really understand the meaning of the words you use or the stuff your puppetmasters direct you to read. You are so foolish, you imagine that the "heat death of the universe".....which is strictly an unverified conjecture about something that might happen in 10 to the hundredth power years (a number so large, you can't even conceive of it)....means anything or has anything to do with your crackpot anti-science fantasies about what is happening now to the climate or about your crackpot theories about the Earth freezing solid due to loss of geothermal heat, or relative to anything else you cluelessly blabber about.

 

Have you ever, ever posted anything besides of a winding string of kindergarten insults?
Anyone can look at your posts and answer No, never.
Can you rephrase plz, - where does Lord Kelvin go wrong?

 

Notice how none of the other deniers now wants anything to do with you? That's how badly you're embarrassing your own side. They'd really like you to quiet down, but they're not allowed to say that. So I'm saying it for them. Even for a denier, your science is awful, and that's saying something.

Nobody is giving you any serious responses any more, for the same reasons that nobody wrote any serious responses to the Unibomber Manifesto. You rebut crazy by simply pointing out it's crazy.

 

Still nothing to address any word I said in any intelligent or not intelligent way.
I am also still waiting for any denier or believer or any other poster to challenge my statement that the idea that a planet can be warmed up by changing its atmosphere without applying any EXTRA heat to it is anything less than idiotic. Clarification: I am not asking to show to me that it is right or wrong, weak or strong I am asking to give me one reason, just one reason to think that it is less, even slightly less than idiotic.