Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

Peat is not fossils either.

Have you compressed it for millions of years?

 

Still waiting to discuss the science.

 

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

Science cannot be "a set of falsifiable theories." In the pursuit of scientific knowledge it only builds upon that which has been tested and we use method in the pursuit of more knowledge. If we have a rock, and we smash that rock into a head, we learn that rocks can smash heads. It does not remain a falsifiable theory that a rock can smash a head, It is now a proven theory, and over time a law.

 

Sometimes it is just hard to convert eye candy. I went down to the docks to try and convert some USS Norton Sound lesbeans to the right path, I was considerably uneducated then.

 

They are not random numbers. If that were true then you would expect random feedback from different sources that do not agree. In fact all the satelitte measurements HadCrut4, GSS, Mlo Japanese agency are in good agreement:

Then what is good science? Your own opinion?

Well at least legacy news organizations have a standard of journalistic ethics to guide them. Your imagination does not. Nor do blogs like WUWT. You have to have some evidentuary format on which to base opinion and information though all do have ingrained forms of bias. That is why researching multiple sources is a good idea.

I explained your misperception upthread. Chemical bonds in greenhouse gases absorb infrared and keep it from radiating into space. That radiation has to go somewhere so some it if reflects back to Earth like off a thermal blanket.

Try an experiment. Take a sleeping bag outside on a cold night. Sit for about 5 minutes. Then get into the sleeping bag. At that moment which is warmer, the bag or the core temperature of your body.

What happens? If what you say was true your body could not warm because it is already hotter than ambient conditions or the sleeping bag.

If you have overturned the centuries of study and experiment on the greenhouse effect, you should be hailed as the genius you are and given credit for overturning the laws of physics and revolutionizing our understanding of climate. Just saying....

No. You are misinterpreting them in order to try to support and an argument that is wrong. If you were correct then clouds could not radiate heat back to the Earth and we would not observe warmer nights when it is cloudy.

The only thing contradicting logic and science is your own interpretation of thermodynamics and atmospheric physics. It is the problem when you try to go on your own imagination and don't try to understand the empirical science behind a theory or law. Maxwell would be appalled.

It is not just weather stations even though those are well represented in rural and urban sites all over the world. It is satelitte data from at least 5 different scientific agencies as well as argo buoys and a host of other measurement techniques. If it really were random numbers, you would expect not of these to agree. They agree with statistical accuracy.

I live in a northern country. All you have to do is talk to Inuit people and ask them the changes they see in their world over the last 50 years or so and look at how seasons and forests have changed in Canada to know that the climate is warming.

 

Maybe, there is still no absolute proof I am not a god, and I have some memory loss from some other minor god hitting me in the head with an asteroid.

 

Let me know when you can find even one scientist to agree with you.

 

Which proves that the Paris Climate Accord is a useless, meaningless, joke.

It's not what you say or what you sign or what you join; it's what you do. The United States has the cleanest industry in the world. India and China have the worst. If you want to save the world, and you know you really don't give a schiff about the world or the planet, go to China or India and protest there.

 

You confuse the Paris Climate Accord for something designed to address the past instead of the future. The PCA is about each country setting goals based on their current socioeconomic conditions and then holding themselves and each other to those goals in exchange for access to new technology and other resources which make those futures cleaner and more viable.

The United States still emits more CO2 than any other country, except China, despite having a population which is roughly 4x lower. On a per capita basis, we are third. Less than 15% of our energy is produced by renewable sources. So no, the United States is not one of the cleanest in the world - there is still very much that we can do and should do.

 

Most cases of cancer are due to chance and environment, not due to inherited genes.

I just pulled that example to show how science works. Use any falsifiable theory you wish in its place.

Define "climate change".

Climate does not change, as it is merely a subjective word with no quantitative value. A desert climate does not "change" into a marine climate. A desert may become a sea, but a desert climate is still a desert climate and a marine climate is still a marine climate. Nothing has changed. There is nothing quantitative about climate TO change...

Argument by randU Fallacy. Made up numbers are not data. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth within any usable accuracy with our current infrastructure. The variance of temperature is simply far too high.

 

As I said, we don't burn fossils for fuel. We burn carbon based fuels.

 

Wikipedia dismissed on sight. You cannot use Wikipedia as a source with me.

Your theory is too vague. What are you considering to be a "rock" and a "head"? What are you considering to be "smashed"? You need to be more specific.

No theory of science is ever proven to be true. It simply continues to survive null hypothesis testing. That is not a proof of anything.

How much time, exactly?

A theory doesn't become a law with the addition of time. Time is irrelevant. A theory, rather, becomes a law with the addition of a closed functional system (typically mathematics). A law is simply a theory that has been formalized. That formalization is what grants the theory the power of prediction that is inherent in closed functional systems such as mathematics.

 

“Cancer-causing genetic changes can also be acquired during one’s lifetime, as the result of errors that occur as cells divide or from exposure to carcinogenic substances that damage DNA, such as certain chemicals in tobacco smoke, and radiation, such as ultraviolet rays from the sun. Genetic changes that occur after conception are called somatic (or acquired) changes.”
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/genetics

History of the Sahara desert, look it up, climate change.

Please quote the entire sentence:

“It does not remain a falsifiable theory that a rock can smash a head, It is now a proven theory, and over time a law.”

Time from proven theory to law, in that case, about as how long it takes for the caveman to realize the skull has smashed; and he did that before inventing math.

“No theory of science is ever proven to be true.” (gfm7175)

Thank God cavemen didn’t have you around, they never would have invented fire.

 

Have you found a single scientists to agree with you yet?

 

Yes they are. Any number concerning a "global temperature" or a "global temperature anomaly" is a complete fabrication. The temperature of Seattle says nothing about the temperature of Casper, WY. The temperature of Seattle says nothing about the temperature of some uninhabitable location in the heart of the South Pole. We must group our weather stations at least to some extent so that they can be serviced. This introduces location bias into the results, as they are not uniformly spaced. They also aren't all simultaneously read by the same authority. That introduces time bias into the results. We must also take into account that temperatures can vary by as much as 20degF per mile and 49degF per two minutes. This means that MANY more weather stations are required to yield results that are within a usable margin of error (whatever you consider that usable margin of error to be). With our current infrastructure, measuring a global temperature simply is not possible. Any attempt to do so is just made up numbers, since the margin of error with our current infrastructure is essentially as wide as the possible temperature range itself.

None of those agencies are measuring global temperatures for the reasons that I have described above. Satellites are also incapable of doing so. They do not measure absolute temperature. They measure light. Those light readings cannot be converted into temperature since we do not know what the emissivity of Earth is. In order to know the emissivity of Earth, we must first know the temperature of Earth. Thus, these numbers are also made up BS.

The Laws of Thermodynamics
The Stefan Boltzmann Law
Planck's Law
Wein's Law
etc.

Science is not "journalism" nor any source outside of the theories of science themselves.

Describe Greenhouse Effect in a way that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law.

Violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and the Stefan Boltzmann Law.

** Heat cannot be trapped. (it can only be increased and reduced)
** Entropy cannot decrease in any closed system. (it can only increase or stay the same)
** Radiation cannot decrease while temperature increases. (these values are directly proportional to each other)

It does go somewhere. It goes out into space (the ultimate heat sink). Heat cannot be trapped.

Okay. I am now outside on a cold night with a sleeping bag by my side.

I am sitting. I am shivering, since my body's thermal energy output cannot keep up with the open convection of the cold outside air.

I have now crawled into the sleeping bag.

The core temperature of my body.

Now that I am inside the sleeping bag, I begin to slowly feel warmer, since the sleeping bag acts as a coupling reducer between the (now warming) air trapped within the sleeping bag and the colder outside air. At this moment, heat has been reduced. My body can now "keep up" much easier, since the aforementioned coupling has been reduced.

Here you're trying to equate a thermal energy source with a non-thermal energy source.

Our bodies generate thermal energy (as they are a thermal energy source) all while losing it to our surroundings.

Describe Greenhouse Effect in a way that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law.

Inversion Fallacy.

Here, you are falsely equating heat with thermal energy.

Here, you are ignoring warm/cold fronts (and various other factors). Did warm air bring those clouds in? Did you know that cold air can bring those clouds in too?

Inversion Fallacy.

Define "well represented". I already explained the math errors involved with our current weather station infrastructure.

I've already explained how satellites do not measure absolute temperatures and why their light readings cannot be converted into temperature. Other measurement techniques commit the same math errors that I have explained earlier.

Climate has no quantitative value, as described earlier.

 

You're still focused on the "who" instead of the "what".

Still waiting to discuss the science.

 

Still waiting on you to find a single scientist that agrees with you.

 

Your point?

No argument presented.

No argument presented.

No argument presented.

 

Are you ready to discuss the science yet?

 

Still waiting for you to discuss the science rather than the scientist.

 

I am not going to discuss science with a guy who thinks he alone knows the "real" science.

Find me a single scientist that agrees with you.

 

bald assertion fallacy. You are making unsubstantiated assertions you have not provided evidence for.

 

You're not waiting to discuss science. You are dismissing over a century of empirical experimentally robust science starting with Fourier and Arrhenius going all up to Keeling and the climate scientist of today. As Legal has told you, there is virtually no one in the scientific community who would side with you and you have offered not a shred of evidence to back up your claims.

As it is you who is trying to pretend that the greenhouse effect is impossible due to violating thermodynamics or Stephan- Boltzmann (Who both would laugh you out of the room btw) is is up to you prove your claims.

So I am assuming you have written a paper providing the evidence for your claim and that that paper includes detailed mathematical calculations on the flow of energies and increases and decreases in entropy for the Earth system and shows the thermodynamics of why the Earth is much warmer that the moon say, even though they are exactly the same distance from the sun.

So lets see your paper and calculations. Something like this would be nice:

http://www.pas.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/acta22/acta22-ramanathan.pdf
https://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~showman/greenhouse.html

So seeing by your last post to me you are mumbling unsupported claims, much as gboy was before he split, if you are going to claim to have overturned the laws of physics you are going to have to provide the proof as it is you who is making these claims.

So, I will keep asking until you provide in detail your calculations and written paper showing that the greenhouse effect is impossible

Please start by using the T= (F/&sigma)1/4 as a starting point but also you need to calculate how the Earth maintains any warmth at all if the greenhouse effect is impossible as you have stated.

And you can't just keep babbling nonsense. You need to show your work mathematically. It is you after all who keeps bringing up thermodynamics and Boltzmann and mathematics and science after all.

This chapter from A Harvard on-line text on atmospheric physics may help you with a framework for the equations you will need to back your claim. Good Luck.



http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html

So, let's see what you've got?

Oh and by the way satellites do not measure light. They measure infrared radiation and they take overall level measurements of the Earth as the pass over in orbit not a single temperature in Seattle or New York or whatever. Your list of unsubstantiated nonsense is.....well, pythonesque...lol.

 

The CO2 absorbs some of the IR that would be lost to space and then reradiated in all directions or to other molecules in the atmosphere increasing their temperature.
More CO2 more reradiation. No laws are broken.

 

Okay, then let me know when you are ready to discuss the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law regarding Greenhouse Effect. I don't care what any "scientist" says about it. Those laws speak for themselves.