Remember me
▼ Content

Natural Climate Variation


Natural Climate Variation11-03-2019 15:56
James___
★★★★☆
(1160)
Interesting read if people support natural climate variation which most don't. Many believe that the Earth's environment over centuries or even millennia doesn't change. This is because they aren't able to consider that geologic events can influence the Earth's orbit around the Sun which directly effects the Solar Constant.
I hear very little actual science discussed which can influence the Earth's environment such as geology and astrophysics. Maybe most don't get the maths, etc. ?
This link https://www.livescience.com/64960-why-antarctica-icebergs-are-green.html?utm_source=notification is interesting for a very odd reason. If the iron in green icebergs supply iron to the oceans which phytoplankton needs, how long does that iron stay in the marine ecosystem?
It's possible that it could stay in the food chain as long as the iron remains as iron. As with about all marine life, everything is something else's dinner. If this is true then this would help to show that natural climate variation might be necessary to have a healthy marine ecosystem.
What I have never seen discussed in here are the ice core samples taken from retreating glaciers. Has anyone ever discussed that? That wouldn't matter would it? You know, if glaciers can build up faster on their faces exposed to the wind. A glaciers exposed face changes air currents. And for air to rise it needs to become lighter. Such ice core samples might show that the windward face of a glacier is younger than the core of the glacier. If so then that might give an idea of how quickly ice can "grow" on a glacier and the last time a windward face of a glacier was exposed to the elements.
Instead, ice core researchers drill down in going for the oldest ice. But as I've said, all people who support global warming are considered to be in a church of global warming because there is no global warming. That's not discussing science, it's called having an opposing opinion. Just imagine, both people on opposite sides of the argument are most likely wrong.
11-03-2019 16:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
James___ wrote:
Interesting read if people support natural climate variation which most don't.


I have the same simple and straightforward questions for which I never seem to get a direct answer:

1) What is the definition of "climate"? Are you talking about the infamous "Global Climate"? Is "climate" mistakenly being used interchangeably with "environment"?

2) With the definition of "climate" in mind, what is "natural variability" as opposed to "unnatural variability"?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-03-2019 23:05
James___
★★★★☆
(1160)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
Interesting read if people support natural climate variation which most don't.


I have the same simple and straightforward questions for which I never seem to get a direct answer:

1) What is the definition of "climate"? Are you talking about the infamous "Global Climate"? Is "climate" mistakenly being used interchangeably with "environment"?

2) With the definition of "climate" in mind, what is "natural variability" as opposed to "unnatural variability"?



What I go with is generally not accepted.
we have a tropical climate which is along the equator. And then along the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn we have sub-tropical climates. Then further from the equator we have temperate climates. And of course the Arctic and Antarctica are both polar regions.
Regional variation is allowed. Such as Phoenix, Arizona is in the desert would be one example of such a variation. This is because just as with both the Sahara and Gobi deserts, if the wind doesn't bring rain then that could be because of geographical features such as the Sierra Nevadas or the Atlas Mountains.

what is "natural variability" as opposed to "unnatural variability"?

There are a growing number of scientists who acknowledge that heat is coming from the Earth's core. As glaciers melt, tectonic plates rebound or lift. This can cause hot vents in the sea floor. It can also change the velocity at which the Earth rotates by placing more mass (water) further from the polar regions.
And when the Earth's orbit changes, then cooling can increase the mass of glaciers once again slightly altering the Earth's orbit around the Sun.
Myself, I tend to think this type of geologic activity can influence even the Arctic and so little research of this type has been done.
http://time.com/3698572/science-maya-tolstoy-geophysical-research-letters-volcanoes-climate-change/

http://time.com/5353986/california-wildfire-2018-season/

Gulf of California
https://phys.org/news/2018-12-undersea-hydrothermal-vent-species-discoveries.html

CO2 is preventing them from considering other sources of heat.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/priyashukla/2018/08/04/warm-ocean-temperatures-in-san-diego-break-102-year-record/#789d46f97761

From the University of California at Riverside;
https://goo.gl/images/v7MwwU

With El Nino and La Nina they haven't considered that heat could be released by a geyser from time to time just north of Australia. This could influence wind patterns. I don't think they've ever tried following the heat in the ocean. Might be too much area to cover, research does cost money.
Edited on 11-03-2019 23:06
12-03-2019 14:44
James___
★★★★☆
(1160)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: we have a tropical climate which is along the equator.

Stop! There are millions of climates on the planet. Millions. At/near the equator there are many tropical climates but there are also many desert climates, e.g. Somalia, Peru, etc. Of course there are many others as well.

The point is that there is no one single GLOBAL climate. The idea is an absurd contradiction in terms.

James___ wrote: And then along the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn we have sub-tropical climates.

A more insightful question is "Are there any climates that are NOT found along the Topic lines?"

The following are all on the Tropic of Capricorn:





The following are all on the Tropic of Cancer:




James___ wrote: There are a growing number of scientists who acknowledge that heat is coming from the Earth's core.

This statement is silly. Either you are saying that there are many scientists who still remain unaware that the earth's core is rather hot or you are saying that a growing number of scientists are falling under the stupid misconception that geothermal activity somehow makes anything but a negligible contribution to earth's surface temperatures.

I'm afraid to ask which one you are claiming.


James___ wrote: And when the Earth's orbit changes, then cooling can increase the mass of glaciers once again slightly altering the Earth's orbit around the Sun.

We're not in any danger of ice melt altering the orbit of the earth around the sun.

James___ wrote: I don't think they've ever tried following the heat in the ocean. Might be too much area to cover, research does cost money.

I hope you realize how completely absurd that whole claim was. Fundamentalist Global Warming zealots were DESPERATE for an excuse to explain away why there was no Global Warming occurring. In a panic, they blurted out "Oh yeah, all that excess HEAT BUILDUP went into hiding at the bottom of the ocean where no one can see it." The claim was that Global Warming never had any "pause" but instead rolled up its sleeve and got to work exclusively at the bottom of the ocean and that if we were to only look then we would find all the Global Warming there!

I'll let you in on a little secret. The US Navy never saw it and they're down at the bottom of the ocean all the time, all over the world. I'm sure that the IPCC has some sort of explanation as to how Global Warming actively avoids submarines.


You just threw science out the window. For what goes in this forum as science, you just explained why many people won't post in here. I could explain to you how global warming avoids submarine detection. You just showed though that you consider regional environments to be different climates.
For people who loosely define what "climate" is, they would agree with you. A desert can be considered an arid climate. But why is it arid? Why if you follow the Atlas Mountains up to Bulgaria does the "climate" change? For that matter, why does the "climate" change when you go south to sub-Saharan Africa?
You offered no explanation. You just posted a lot of pictures saying those prove something. I guess if a person's never learned anything about science then that would seem like something. But it's not.
Maybe one day you'll join the Navy? Then you might learn for yourself what you don't know about how and why submarines are deployed. Your statement about submarines would seem logical to anyone who hasn't served in the Navy and knows otherwise.
See ITN? I just falsified logic. That's the same mistake that you, ITN and his friend Gomer Pyle routinely make. Because to you something is logical does not mean that it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8KZK0AFgeE
12-03-2019 14:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
James___ wrote: we have a tropical climate which is along the equator.

Stop! There are millions of climates on the planet. Millions. At/near the equator there are many tropical climates but there are also many desert climates, e.g. Somalia, Peru, etc. Of course there are many others as well.

The point is that there is no one single GLOBAL climate. The idea is an absurd contradiction in terms.

James___ wrote: And then along the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn we have sub-tropical climates.

A more insightful question is "Are there any climates that are NOT found along the Topic lines?"

The following are all on the Tropic of Capricorn:





The following are all on the Tropic of Cancer:




James___ wrote: There are a growing number of scientists who acknowledge that heat is coming from the Earth's core.

This statement is silly. Either you are saying that there are many scientists who still remain unaware that the earth's core is rather hot or you are saying that a growing number of scientists are falling under the stupid misconception that geothermal activity somehow makes anything but a negligible contribution to earth's surface temperatures.

I'm afraid to ask which one you are claiming.


James___ wrote: And when the Earth's orbit changes, then cooling can increase the mass of glaciers once again slightly altering the Earth's orbit around the Sun.

We're not in any danger of ice melt altering the orbit of the earth around the sun.

James___ wrote: I don't think they've ever tried following the heat in the ocean. Might be too much area to cover, research does cost money.

I hope you realize how completely absurd that whole claim was. Fundamentalist Global Warming zealots were DESPERATE for an excuse to explain away why there was no Global Warming occurring. In a panic, they blurted out "Oh yeah, all that excess HEAT BUILDUP went into hiding at the bottom of the ocean where no one can see it." The claim was that Global Warming never had any "pause" but instead rolled up its sleeve and got to work exclusively at the bottom of the ocean and that if we were to only look then we would find all the Global Warming there!

I'll let you in on a little secret. The US Navy never saw it and they're down at the bottom of the ocean all the time, all over the world. I'm sure that the IPCC has some sort of explanation as to how Global Warming actively avoids submarines.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-03-2019 17:01
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
James___ wrote: You just threw science out the window.

Now you are just being a moron. Let me know when something changes. For now I'll just consider your king tipped.

James___ wrote: I could explain to you how global warming avoids submarine detection.

... then explain it ... after you first falsifiably define Global Warming.

Wait, you can't do any of that. You're just pouting that your scientific illiteracy was put into the spotlight again. You just explained why no one should ever try to help you out. You think you already know everything and that you are some sort of science genius.

Oh, and your pouting is very unbecoming.

Anyway, I'm definitely eager to hear your explanation of how Global Warming avoids submarines.

James___ wrote:You just showed though that you consider regional environments to be different climates.

Do I win a prize?

A regional environment, bounded by a time frame, is a climate.


James___ wrote: A desert can be considered an arid climate. But why is it arid?

Not enough moisture?

James___ wrote: Why if you follow the Atlas Mountains up to Bulgaria does the "climate" change? For that matter, why does the "climate" change when you go south to sub-Saharan Africa?

Are you asking why the climate changes when you go from one climate to another?

James___ wrote: You offered no explanation.

You didn't ask for one. You didn't even know that there were many climates on earth. You thought that there was only one. Then you got all pissy when I explained to you the climate diversity of our planet. I don't think you're ready for this "discussion" thing.

James___ wrote: You just posted a lot of pictures saying those prove something.

They prove that you were WRONG about there being only one global climate on the planet, for one thing. They also prove that you were WRONG about there being only one type of climate on the equator, the tropic lines, etc...

Yes, those pictures PROVE that you were WRONG and you PROVE that you are a reality DENIER.

Oh, by the way, what science did I throw out the window?

James___ wrote: I guess if a person's never learned anything about science then that would seem like something. But it's not.

Is this your excuse for thinking there is only one climate on the planet?

James___ wrote: Maybe one day you'll join the Navy? Then you might learn for yourself what you don't know about how and why submarines are deployed. Your statement about submarines would seem logical to anyone who hasn't served in the Navy and knows otherwise.

How would you suppose my statements about submarines would appear to Navy Captains and Commanders working for the Joint Chiefs of Staff? How do you believe they would respond?

These are the three balls in your court?

1. What science did I throw out the window?
2. How does Global Warming that is hiding at the bottom of the ocean avoid detection by submarines and avoid detection by the Navy Research Labs who monitor ocean temperatures?
3. How would JCS (Navy) Captains and Commanders take my statements about submarine deployments?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-03-2019 17:27
Wake
★★★★★
(4012)
The definition of climate as is used in climate change is very clear: the mean global temperature (MGT). local climates are an entirely different thing all together and you cannot show a picture of the Sahara or the roasting heat of Death Valley and compare that with expanding ice levels in the Arctic ocean.

While you COULD use surface temperature measurements to generate a mean global temperature you are severely limited by the number of thermometers it would require and the placement of them since most of the surface temperature thermometers in the records are almost entirely in the US and a much smaller number in Europe and that is about it. Almost all of Africa and the southern hemisphere had so little data that they show almost nothing and even though 70% of the Earth is covered in oceans we have essentially NO ocean temperatures at all. So the actual information records of NASA even politely described are lacking in hard information.

There is a manner in which you can gather enough data points to make a pretty accurate judgement of mean global temperature and that is via satellite measurements. And those do not show any warming at all but nothing more than the natural chaotic year to year events. You can see for yourself at http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

That slight rising is, again - nothing but normal chaotic weather events that change from year to year. The center line on that charge is the actual MGT whereas the dark line is a 13 month running average. Climate is measured in 100 year changes and so if you were to average that short chart you would actually get a falling temperature.

It is very important to understand that NASA is lying through their teeth. What the reasoning is behind this I cannot say, but they surely are lying. They have removed entire records such as the tremendous growth in ice in the Arctic and the Antarctic. While in some cases the temperatures have increased in the Arctic, a change of -42 degrees C to -40 degrees C has no effect whatsoever on the ice pack. And these things happen year to year. So "warming" last year can be rapidly offset by cooling two years later.

In 1925 scientists in Spitzbergin claimed that the ice pack in the Arctic would be completely gone by 1932. Even though 1932 was one of the warmest years on record there was no measureable change in the Arctic ice pack.

In 1955 when the US Nuclear Submarine surfaced at the north pole in open water no one was crying that the world was dying from climate change. And 5 years later when the ice at that same point was over 6 feet thick no one was crying about the coming Ice Age. It wasn't until about 1960 that "scientists" were using the cooling from 1940 to 1960 to decry the great coming Ice Age. When that didn't occur and tempatures started rising again they simply erased the large cooling from 1940 to 1966 which was the coldest, and started using charts that STARTED in 1966 to show the unbelievable warming that was no more real than the scary cooling.
12-03-2019 17:32
James___
★★★★☆
(1160)
IBdaMann,
So what you're saying is that your personal attacks demonstrate an understanding of science?
I think that's actually of you're being afraid. A fight or flight mechanism if you will.
For your information submarines are strategically deployed. There are very few that are used for scientific exploration because the oceans are so vast. Maybe you'll read this link?
I know you'll dismiss what NOAA says https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/exploration.html and yet these other people say https://www.livescience.com/14493-ocean-exploration-deep-sea-diving.html and yet you will say this is wrong. And I guess this makes a scientific genius being aware of these things, right? Thank you for the compliment.
12-03-2019 18:01
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
James___ wrote:IBdaMann, So what you're saying is that your personal attacks demonstrate an understanding of science?

You never got a firm grip on formal logic, did you?

James___ wrote: I think that's actually of you're being afraid.

Oh, of course, your intellectual cowardice is just me being afraid ... of you ... I guess.

James___ wrote:
For your information submarines are strategically deployed.

... and they are tactically deployed. Are you aware that submarines are used to carry out missions?

James___ wrote:
There are very few that are used for scientific exploration because the oceans are so vast.

Scientific exploration is not their priority. However, they end up going all over the world, to every depth. They take readings. Submarine Captains get reports. It's the same with aircraft. They go all over the world ... but they do have a limit as to the altitude they can achieve. Nonetheless they take altitude readings, temperature readings, all sorts of data.

The Navy Research Labs, on the other hand, have plenty of budget to provide a comprehensive, unabridged ocean mapping (which is refined by actual submarine data) which they provide to NGA who then makes a lot of that information available to US allies for "Safety of Navigation" purposes.

James___ wrote: I know you'll dismiss what NOAA says

Yes. Out of hand. Don't try peddling NOAA or NASA opinions. Get me data from the NGA and I'll likely go with that.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/exploration.html and yet these other people say https://www.livescience.com/14493-ocean-exploration-deep-sea-diving.html and yet you will say this is wrong. [/quote]
Ask yourself if this article passes any sort of sanity check.

Do you believe submarines are inexpensive?

Do you believe the US government would be just fine with letting its submarines blindly crash into the sides of trenches, mountains, canyons, etc...?

Do you believe that the US would confine its submarines to patrolling only the known 5% of ocean floor, i.e. Russian subs thumbing their noses at us from the
other 95%?

We have mapped out the ocean floor. We have mapped out the earth's surface.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-03-2019 19:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7643)
Wake wrote:
The definition of climate as is used in climate change is very clear: the mean global temperature (MGT).
I have never seen 'clmate' defined as just a temperature. Why not just say 'temperature'? Oh...that's right. It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
local climates are an entirely different thing all together and you cannot show a picture of the Sahara or the roasting heat of Death Valley and compare that with expanding ice levels in the Arctic ocean.

So the term 'climate' has a completely new meaning now? It has no time interval anymore? It's just the instantaneous temperature of the Earth? Why not just use the instantaneous temperature of the Earth?
Wake wrote:
While you COULD use surface temperature measurements to generate a mean global temperature you are severely limited by the number of thermometers it would require and the placement of them since most of the surface temperature thermometers in the records are almost entirely in the US and a much smaller number in Europe and that is about it. Almost all of Africa and the southern hemisphere had so little data that they show almost nothing and even though 70% of the Earth is covered in oceans we have essentially NO ocean temperatures at all. So the actual information records of NASA even politely described are lacking in hard information.

There is a manner in which you can gather enough data points to make a pretty accurate judgement of mean global temperature and that is via satellite measurements. And those do not show any warming at all but nothing more than the natural chaotic year to year events. You can see for yourself at http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Satellites are incapable of measuring an absolute temperature, Wake. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. All satellites can measure is light.
Wake wrote:
That slight rising is, again - nothing but normal chaotic weather events that change from year to year. The center line on that charge is the actual MGT whereas the dark line is a 13 month running average. Climate is measured in 100 year changes and so if you were to average that short chart you would actually get a falling temperature.

Wait...what?? Didn't you JUST SAY that climate is the mean temperature of the Earth? That's an instantaneous value! Now you specify 100 years? Is this your version of 'a long time'? Why 100 years? Why not 10 years? Why not 1000 years? Why not 10 minutes? Why not 10 seconds? Now you decide to just arbitrarily add a specified time interval? Just what is 'a long time'?

Climate is often defined as 'weather over a long time'. What is the global weather at this moment? Is weather more than just temperature? What is a 'long time'? If you specify a global weather, why not specify a solar system weather? Why not Universe weather? Why not the combined weather systems on every planet in the Universe averaged together?
Wake wrote:
It is very important to understand that NASA is lying through their teeth. What the reasoning is behind this I cannot say, but they surely are lying. They have removed entire records such as the tremendous growth in ice in the Arctic and the Antarctic. While in some cases the temperatures have increased in the Arctic, a change of -42 degrees C to -40 degrees C has no effect whatsoever on the ice pack. And these things happen year to year. So "warming" last year can be rapidly offset by cooling two years later.

In 1925 scientists in Spitzbergin claimed that the ice pack in the Arctic would be completely gone by 1932. Even though 1932 was one of the warmest years on record there was no measureable change in the Arctic ice pack.

In 1955 when the US Nuclear Submarine surfaced at the north pole in open water no one was crying that the world was dying from climate change. And 5 years later when the ice at that same point was over 6 feet thick no one was crying about the coming Ice Age. It wasn't until about 1960 that "scientists" were using the cooling from 1940 to 1960 to decry the great coming Ice Age. When that didn't occur and tempatures started rising again they simply erased the large cooling from 1940 to 1966 which was the coldest, and started using charts that STARTED in 1966 to show the unbelievable warming that was no more real than the scary cooling.


It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, Wake. We have no idea if the Earth is warming, cooling, or just staying the same.


The Parrot Killer
12-03-2019 23:15
James___
★★★★☆
(1160)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:IBdaMann, So what you're saying is that your personal attacks demonstrate an understanding of science?

You never got a firm grip on formal logic, did you?

James___ wrote: I think that's actually of you're being afraid.

Oh, of course, your intellectual cowardice is just me being afraid ... of you ... I guess.

James___ wrote:
For your information submarines are strategically deployed.

... and they are tactically deployed. Are you aware that submarines are used to carry out missions?

James___ wrote:
There are very few that are used for scientific exploration because the oceans are so vast.

Scientific exploration is not their priority. However, they end up going all over the world, to every depth. They take readings. Submarine Captains get reports. It's the same with aircraft. They go all over the world ... but they do have a limit as to the altitude they can achieve. Nonetheless they take altitude readings, temperature readings, all sorts of data.

The Navy Research Labs, on the other hand, have plenty of budget to provide a comprehensive, unabridged ocean mapping (which is refined by actual submarine data) which they provide to NGA who then makes a lot of that information available to US allies for "Safety of Navigation" purposes.

James___ wrote: I know you'll dismiss what NOAA says

Yes. Out of hand. Don't try peddling NOAA or NASA opinions. Get me data from the NGA and I'll likely go with that.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/exploration.html and yet these other people say https://www.livescience.com/14493-ocean-exploration-deep-sea-diving.html and yet you will say this is wrong.

Ask yourself if this article passes any sort of sanity check.

Do you believe submarines are inexpensive?

Do you believe the US government would be just fine with letting its submarines blindly crash into the sides of trenches, mountains, canyons, etc...?

Do you believe that the US would confine its submarines to patrolling only the known 5% of ocean floor, i.e. Russian subs thumbing their noses at us from the
other 95%?

We have mapped out the ocean floor. We have mapped out the earth's surface.[/quote]

You posted nothing that can be discussed. If someone supported Adolf Hitler and made your post, I would need to make the same reply.
13-03-2019 01:08
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3520)
James___ wrote:
You posted nothing that can be discussed.

In other words you tip your king.

YOU are the one arguing stupid crap. I just rebutted your crap. You can't rebut the rebuts so you acknowledge checkmate.

Oh, and you are welcome for the overview of US government efforts to enhance global safety of navigation and to increase humanity's body of knowledge.

Let me know when you want to play again and we'll reset the board.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist




Join the debate Natural Climate Variation:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
IPCC sucks. They have no answer for natural climatic cooling other than painting houses black to decrease019-04-2019 16:32
Natural Crude Oil Seepage123-03-2019 23:36
It's Only Natural?616-03-2019 22:09
Is the CO2 increase natural or man-made?4006-09-2018 20:07
Can we build an efficient hybrid solar-natural gas engine that emits no CO2?305-10-2017 04:36
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact