Remember me
▼ Content

Weather


Weather24-05-2019 15:15
James___
★★★★☆
(1349)
There's record flooding in the US and in the southeast (Georgia temperatures around Macon are expected to hit 100° + for the first time ever in May.
But that's normal. There's condensation in the atmosphere and there's a temperature that we can't measure in a meaningful way. That's because we have a government that orders us to go to work, earn money so we can buy what we're told to.
Right ITN and IBdaMann?


Some people support Marxism but none that I know of in this forum.
https://youtu.be/Dsw9jYU_rJI

I am the one in the wrong place.
Edited on 24-05-2019 15:20
24-05-2019 16:22
James___
★★★★☆
(1349)
https://www.citynews1130.com/video/2019/05/18/muskoka-still-dealing-with-record-flooding/
https://41nbc.com/2019/05/24/record-high-temperatures-expected-weekend/
24-05-2019 18:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3851)
James___ wrote: There's record flooding in the US

There's no record flooding in the US.

Let's first review what the MANUAL tells us you are supposed to be saying:

Unprecedented: adjective
Per the Global Warming lexicon, whenever an ordinary or otherwise non-exceptional event occurs that some Climate Scientist wishes to imply requires a Settled Science explanation, the event is characterized as "unprecedented."

Of the Instrument Record: prepositional phrase
In the Global Warming mythology, being pronounced a superlative "of the instrument record" is a religious honor, akin to a title of sainthood, bestown upon an ordinary or otherwise non-exceptional weather event that becomes interesting trivia for having broken some obscure record.

James___ wrote: and in the southeast (Georgia temperatures around Macon are expected to hit 100° + for the first time ever in May.

So it's completely "unprecedented" yes? It's a first "of the instrument record" yes? Ergo ... Marxism is TRUE! Climate Change is REAL! Yes, I see it now.

James___ wrote: But that's normal. There's condensation in the atmosphere ...

Wow, now that's obscure, isn't it?

James___ wrote: and there's a temperature that we can't measure in a meaningful way.

Calculate. Margin of Error. One can not calculate the average global temperature to any useful margin of error.

I may be the first person to tell you this but any given temperature measurement can only be valid for one point in space. For a given area or volume leveraging multiple measurements, one uses statistical mathematics to calculate the average temperature. I recommend getting acquainted with the upper case sigma.

James___ wrote: That's because we have a government that orders us to go to work, earn money so we can buy what we're told to.

It's because we have a government that encourages us to become unemployed under the promise that it (the government) will steal money from those who choose to remain employed and give it us for free while we sit on a comfy sofa stuffing Pringles into our mouths with one hand and wielding a remote with the other.

It's because we currently have a government that operates under the misconception that everybody else's personal wealth belongs to it.

James___ wrote: Some people support Marxism but none that I know of in this forum.

Are you currently sitting on a comfy sofa with a can of Pringles well within reach?


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
24-05-2019 19:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8136)
James___ wrote:
There's record flooding in the US

No, there isn't.
James___ wrote:
and in the southeast (Georgia temperatures around Macon are expected to hit 100° + for the first time ever in May.

Not the first time. Won't be the last.
James___ wrote:
But that's normal.

It is within the normal range weather stations have logged in Georgia, yes.
James___ wrote:
There's condensation in the atmosphere

Oh horrible! There are CLOUDS in the atmosphere!
James___ wrote:
and there's a temperature that we can't measure in a meaningful way.

True. It is not possible to measure the temperature of Georgia as a whole.
James___ wrote:
That's because we have a government that orders us to go to work,

We don't.
James___ wrote:
earn money so we can buy what we're told to.

It doesn't.
James___ wrote:
Some people support Marxism but none that I know of in this forum.

I can immediately think of several.
James___ wrote:
I am the one in the wrong place.

Where do you think you are, James?


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2019 00:57
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
James___ wrote:
There's record flooding in the US and in the southeast (Georgia temperatures around Macon are expected to hit 100° + for the first time ever in May.
But that's normal. There's condensation in the atmosphere and there's a temperature that we can't measure in a meaningful way. That's because we have a government that orders us to go to work, earn money so we can buy what we're told to.
Right ITN and IBdaMann?


Some people support Marxism but none that I know of in this forum.
https://youtu.be/Dsw9jYU_rJI

I am the one in the wrong place.
The question you have to ask is when did those records begin?
25-05-2019 01:24
James___
★★★★☆
(1349)
dehammer wrote:
James___ wrote:
There's record flooding in the US and in the southeast (Georgia temperatures around Macon are expected to hit 100° + for the first time ever in May.
But that's normal. There's condensation in the atmosphere and there's a temperature that we can't measure in a meaningful way. That's because we have a government that orders us to go to work, earn money so we can buy what we're told to.
Right ITN and IBdaMann?


Some people support Marxism but none that I know of in this forum.
https://youtu.be/Dsw9jYU_rJI

I am the one in the wrong place.
The question you have to ask is when did those records begin?



I don't. I have my own thoughts. If you're wondering, tree rings are what they are. They show weather patterns going back thousands of years. The question is, can we understand what they are telling us?
25-05-2019 02:45
James___
★★★★☆
(1349)
@dehammer, tree rings are not political. Their thickness is entirely dependent on the right atmospheric conditions. While trees will vary and the conditions they need to grow will vary, it does allow for a basic yardstick to consider what conditions existed.
And since science is science, this means that results are repeatable. Tree rings allow for little guess work. Because of this, whatever scientists do, tree rings should in all likelihood support their claims. I guess in this scenario we'd be listening to Mother Nature.
25-05-2019 03:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8136)
James___ wrote:
dehammer wrote:
James___ wrote:
There's record flooding in the US and in the southeast (Georgia temperatures around Macon are expected to hit 100° + for the first time ever in May.
But that's normal. There's condensation in the atmosphere and there's a temperature that we can't measure in a meaningful way. That's because we have a government that orders us to go to work, earn money so we can buy what we're told to.
Right ITN and IBdaMann?


Some people support Marxism but none that I know of in this forum.
https://youtu.be/Dsw9jYU_rJI

I am the one in the wrong place.
The question you have to ask is when did those records begin?



I don't. I have my own thoughts. If you're wondering, tree rings are what they are. They show weather patterns going back thousands of years. The question is, can we understand what they are telling us?

They tell you someone cut down a tree. That's about it.


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2019 04:55
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
James___ wrote:
dehammer wrote:
James___ wrote:
There's record flooding in the US and in the southeast (Georgia temperatures around Macon are expected to hit 100° + for the first time ever in May.
But that's normal. There's condensation in the atmosphere and there's a temperature that we can't measure in a meaningful way. That's because we have a government that orders us to go to work, earn money so we can buy what we're told to.
Right ITN and IBdaMann?


Some people support Marxism but none that I know of in this forum.
https://youtu.be/Dsw9jYU_rJI

I am the one in the wrong place.
The question you have to ask is when did those records begin?



I don't. I have my own thoughts. If you're wondering, tree rings are what they are. They show weather patterns going back thousands of years. The question is, can we understand what they are telling us?
Experts in the field of Dendrochronology will tell you that they can not tell you what the temperature was with tree rings.

The Truth is, their records are based on instruments and in many parts of that state its only a century or so of records, and less in many others. Considering that the location of the flood is affected by a dam that is only a few decades old, that would be the limit of their records.
25-05-2019 04:56
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Into the Night wrote:They tell you someone cut down a tree. That's about it.
Not if it was a tree core. In that case at the time the core was taken, the tree was still growing.
25-05-2019 05:21
James___
★★★★☆
(1349)
dehammer wrote:
James___ wrote:
dehammer wrote:
James___ wrote:
There's record flooding in the US and in the southeast (Georgia temperatures around Macon are expected to hit 100° + for the first time ever in May.
But that's normal. There's condensation in the atmosphere and there's a temperature that we can't measure in a meaningful way. That's because we have a government that orders us to go to work, earn money so we can buy what we're told to.
Right ITN and IBdaMann?


Some people support Marxism but none that I know of in this forum.
https://youtu.be/Dsw9jYU_rJI

I am the one in the wrong place.
The question you have to ask is when did those records begin?



I don't. I have my own thoughts. If you're wondering, tree rings are what they are. They show weather patterns going back thousands of years. The question is, can we understand what they are telling us?
Experts in the field of Dendrochronology will tell you that they can not tell you what the temperature was with tree rings.

The Truth is, their records are based on instruments and in many parts of that state its only a century or so of records, and less in many others. Considering that the location of the flood is affected by a dam that is only a few decades old, that would be the limit of their records.


They kind of disagree with you. This is common knowledge.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379117301592
25-05-2019 06:01
James___
★★★★☆
(1349)
This is kind of what needs to be explained;
Solar influences are detected at the bicentennial (de Vries) frequency, although at other time scales the influence of insolation variability is weak. Approximately 90% of reconstructed grid points show warmer temperatures during the Medieval Climate Anomaly when compared to the Little Ice Age, although the magnitude varies spatially across the hemisphere. Estimates of field reconstruction skill through time and over space can guide future temporal extension and spatial expansion of the proxy network.

ie., why does insolation, the effect of atmospheric gasses is weak? You guys are fart smellas, er, fart smellers, er, smart fellas.
in·so·la·tion
/ˌinsəˈlāSH(ə)n/
nountechnical
noun: insolation

exposure to the sun's rays.
the amount of solar radiation reaching a given area.

And thanks to ITN we all know this comes back to the Stefan-Blotzmann constant and how the Earth refracts solar radiation. That's basically what insolation amounts to. And yet according to tree ring data, it's weak as a variable when it comes to why trees grow.
As Shriley Temple would say, it gets cuoriser and courioser. In reality, it might not. Could an increase in water vapour make solar insolation a viable constant? In the reading material that I provided, no mention was made of the perceived change in relative humidity. In any atmospheric model humidity will need to be included as a variable.
I would hope that either ITN or IBDaMann would be aware of such minor details in any scientific report. They do need to be nit picked in minute detail. That's what science is about. Or simply put, how critical can you be? It's not about finding fault but is about insuring accuracy.
If anyone doesn't get it, trees grow more, have larger rings when it's warm. Without corresponding moisture, the increased solar radiation doesn't matter. Yet they say increased solar radiation had little to do with growth during known warm periods. And IBDaMann, if this is true then we're discussing how dark matter influences our atmosphere. You guys aren't that detail oriented. Even scientists won't consider something like that.
Edited on 25-05-2019 06:10
25-05-2019 06:50
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(807)
The only thing tree rings can tell, is how old the tree. Everything else is just guessing, unless there is documentation on what was going on around that tree, the entire year. Thickness of the rings can only be an indication of how successful the tree was for a particular year, doesn't give a clue as to why or why not. Could have been one thing that wasn't quite right, or a series of things that slowed the growth, no way of telling.

Guessing at things, is very subjective, you tend to only look at the things you want to see most, ignoring everything else. Climatology is a lot like that, and very dismissive of anything that doesn't fit their view. It has to be man-made CO2, the only cure is to stop burning fossil fuels. They can only guess, well actually imagined, there has been a one degree global temperature increase, since no way to actually measure that. One degree celsius, on a global scale, doesn't allow much margin of error, for such a large planet, over a long stretch of time. Sort of silly to call it a crisis, since most any location on earth, is going to see a difference of 10-20 degrees, between night and daylight, any day of the year.

Man-made CO2 production... How much is pulled out of the ground, bought or sold, doesn't mean it gets burned instantaneously, or even burned at all. Both coal and oil have other uses. Some of it gets stored away, for future use. Stuff happens, the supply gets shut down occasionally, sometimes for weeks. They really don't spend much attention on the CO2 measurements or monitoring, because it's not very consistent from station to station, just not enough in the atmosphere 0.04% is tiny, even for very precise instruments.

Tree rings and ice cores are meaningless, until you have supportive evidence. It's just speculation, since no one was there to observe, monitor and measure. Purely a subjective interpretation, not science.
25-05-2019 06:55
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3851)
James___ wrote: ... tree rings are not political. Their thickness is entirely dependent on the right atmospheric conditions.


Incorrect. Any scientist can tell you that tree ring thickness is dependent upon multiple known factors and an unknown number of unknown factors.

Proxies are not valid in science. All "proxy" data is summarily discarded.

James___ wrote: While trees will vary and the conditions they need to grow will vary, it does allow for a basic yardstick to consider what conditions existed.

Nope. Any scientist can tell you that.

James___ wrote: And since science is science, this means that results are repeatable. Tree rings allow for little guess work.

Interpreting religious omens/signs is not science. Any scientist can tell you that.

The Mexican flag bears an eagle with a snake in its mouth. This is born out of the Toltec legend that there would be a sign of an eagle eating a snake perched on a cactus. Well, a few hundred years ago a tribe called the Mexica was wandering around present day Mexico City when an eagle caught a snake (as eagles in that region often did) and then perched on a cactus to eat it (as eagles tended to do when they caught food) and the tribe leader declared that the Toltec prophesy had been fulfilled, that they should stop wandering and call this place home ... and to call themselves Aztecs.

So the moral of the story is that the Mexica were Climate scientists using real science to listen to nature in making their policy decisions. Hey, they kept their carbon footprint low and strictly avoided SUVs.

James___ wrote: Because of this, whatever scientists do, tree rings should in all likelihood support their claims.

You had to resort to using the "should" word which should be your first clue that you aren't talking science here.

Proxies are not valid in science.


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
25-05-2019 07:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3851)
James___ wrote:This is kind of what needs to be explained;
Solar influences are detected at the bicentennial (de Vries) frequency, although at other time scales the influence of insolation variability is weak.

I hate to cut you off but you are using the word "influence" like you think you are being specific. You also state that the sun only has detectable "influence" every two hundred years. I may be the first person to mention this to you but the sun directly affects the earth constantly, i.e. non-stop, continuously, persistently, etc... It's not a once-every-two-hundred-years thing.

James___ wrote: Approximately 90% of reconstructed grid points show warmer temperatures during the Medieval Climate Anomaly when compared to the Little Ice Age, although the magnitude varies spatially across the hemisphere.

This "reconstruction" was made with "proxy" data, right?

Right into the trash it goes.



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
25-05-2019 07:35
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
They kind of disagree with you.
Which of those dozen of so names is a Dendrochronologist? Why don't they publish that in a dendrochronology peer review journal?

I went though several of them and while they do seem some of them to work with what they call a tree ring laboratory, none of them have a degree in dendrochronology, and none of them have written any articles published in any dendrochronology peer review journals, as far as I could tell.

Here is a list of peer review journals. https://www.omicsonline.org/science-journals.php
Notice that your link is not in the journals listed.

The point is, even if they can get a GENERAL idea of what the temperature was, it does not compare to the accuracy of a thermometer. All a tree ring can do is tell you what the temperature was during its ENTIRE growing season, not the highs and lows.
Edited on 25-05-2019 07:43
25-05-2019 08:06
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3851)
dehammer wrote:The point is, even if they can get a GENERAL idea of what the temperature was, it does not compare to the accuracy of a thermometer. All a tree ring can do is tell you what the temperature was during its ENTIRE growing season, not the highs and lows.

They can't get even a general idea. They don't know what they don't know. Proxy data is not valid.


Proxy data ... you know what that means ...



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
25-05-2019 16:36
James___
★★★★☆
(1349)
You guys missed the point about tree ring data. Radiocarbon data is accurate to within about 50 years when you go back a 1,000 years. Tree ring data shows a given year in that area. It's a part of the picture but is not the picture for a larger area.
25-05-2019 20:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8136)
dehammer wrote:
Into the Night wrote:They tell you someone cut down a tree. That's about it.
Not if it was a tree core. In that case at the time the core was taken, the tree was still growing.


True. Good point. In that case, all it tells you is that someone took a tree core.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-05-2019 20:30
25-05-2019 20:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8136)
James___ wrote:
dehammer wrote:
James___ wrote:
dehammer wrote:
James___ wrote:
There's record flooding in the US and in the southeast (Georgia temperatures around Macon are expected to hit 100° + for the first time ever in May.
But that's normal. There's condensation in the atmosphere and there's a temperature that we can't measure in a meaningful way. That's because we have a government that orders us to go to work, earn money so we can buy what we're told to.
Right ITN and IBdaMann?


Some people support Marxism but none that I know of in this forum.
https://youtu.be/Dsw9jYU_rJI

I am the one in the wrong place.
The question you have to ask is when did those records begin?



I don't. I have my own thoughts. If you're wondering, tree rings are what they are. They show weather patterns going back thousands of years. The question is, can we understand what they are telling us?
Experts in the field of Dendrochronology will tell you that they can not tell you what the temperature was with tree rings.

The Truth is, their records are based on instruments and in many parts of that state its only a century or so of records, and less in many others. Considering that the location of the flood is affected by a dam that is only a few decades old, that would be the limit of their records.


They kind of disagree with you. This is common knowledge.
...deleted Holy Link...


Proxies are not used in science. Tree rings do not tell you temperature.


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2019 21:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8136)
James___ wrote:
This is kind of what needs to be explained;

And now for some more wanderings from James:
James___ wrote:
Solar influences are detected at the bicentennial (de Vries) frequency, although at other time scales the influence of insolation variability is weak. Approximately 90% of reconstructed grid points show warmer temperatures during the Medieval Climate Anomaly when compared to the Little Ice Age, although the magnitude varies spatially across the hemisphere. Estimates of field reconstruction skill through time and over space can guide future temporal extension and spatial expansion of the proxy network.

Proxies aren't used in science.
James___ wrote:
ie., why does insolation, the effect of atmospheric gasses is weak? You guys are fart smellas, er, fart smellers, er, smart fellas.
in·so·la·tion
/ˌinsəˈlāSH(ə)n/
nountechnical
noun: insolation

exposure to the sun's rays.
the amount of solar radiation reaching a given area.

Because the atmosphere is less dense than anything on the surface absorbing sunlight. You cannot limit insolation to a given area. You consider the entire Earth or not at all. You are trying to ignore Kirchoff's law.
James___ wrote:
And thanks to ITN we all know this comes back to the Stefan-Blotzmann constant

Sort of. It does involve surface area absorbing energy though. It also involves absorptivity, which is the same as emissivity. Neither value is known for Earth.
James___ wrote:
and how the Earth refracts solar radiation.

Absorption is not refraction.
James___ wrote:
That's basically what insolation amounts to.

Absorption is not refraction.
James___ wrote:
And yet according to tree ring data, it's weak as a variable when it comes to why trees grow.

Absorption is not refraction.
James___ wrote:
As Shriley Temple would say, it gets cuoriser and courioser. In reality, it might not. Could an increase in water vapour make solar insolation a viable constant?

Water vapor makes no difference. The Earth is the Earth.
James___ wrote:
In the reading material that I provided, no mention was made of the perceived change in relative humidity. In any atmospheric model humidity will need to be included as a variable.

Why?
James___ wrote:
I would hope that either ITN or IBDaMann would be aware of such minor details in any scientific report.

That is not a detail. It is a nonfactor.
James___ wrote:
They do need to be nit picked in minute detail. That's what science is about. Or simply put, how critical can you be? It's not about finding fault but is about insuring accuracy.

Science isn't measurement. It is not data. It does not use proxies. Science is a set of falsifiable theories only.
James___ wrote:
If anyone doesn't get it, trees grow more, have larger rings when it's warm.

WRONG. Trees grow faster when conditions favor them. Temperature is a very small factor in those conditions. Some trees do better in colder environments.
James___ wrote:
Without corresponding moisture, the increased solar radiation doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter anyway.
James___ wrote:
Yet they say increased solar radiation had little to do with growth during known warm periods.

Because you conveniently ignored Kirchoff's law.
James___ wrote:
You guys aren't that detail oriented.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that pays no attention to little details, like Kirchoff's law.


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2019 21:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8136)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The only thing tree rings can tell, is how old the tree. Everything else is just guessing, unless there is documentation on what was going on around that tree, the entire year. Thickness of the rings can only be an indication of how successful the tree was for a particular year, doesn't give a clue as to why or why not. Could have been one thing that wasn't quite right, or a series of things that slowed the growth, no way of telling.

Guessing at things, is very subjective, you tend to only look at the things you want to see most, ignoring everything else. Climatology is a lot like that, and very dismissive of anything that doesn't fit their view. It has to be man-made CO2, the only cure is to stop burning fossil fuels. They can only guess, well actually imagined, there has been a one degree global temperature increase, since no way to actually measure that. One degree celsius, on a global scale, doesn't allow much margin of error, for such a large planet, over a long stretch of time. Sort of silly to call it a crisis, since most any location on earth, is going to see a difference of 10-20 degrees, between night and daylight, any day of the year.

Man-made CO2 production... How much is pulled out of the ground, bought or sold, doesn't mean it gets burned instantaneously, or even burned at all. Both coal and oil have other uses. Some of it gets stored away, for future use. Stuff happens, the supply gets shut down occasionally, sometimes for weeks. They really don't spend much attention on the CO2 measurements or monitoring, because it's not very consistent from station to station, just not enough in the atmosphere 0.04% is tiny, even for very precise instruments.

Tree rings and ice cores are meaningless, until you have supportive evidence. It's just speculation, since no one was there to observe, monitor and measure. Purely a subjective interpretation, not science.


Dead right. Also CO2 makes no difference to the temperature of the Earth. It can't.


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2019 21:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8136)
James___ wrote:
You guys missed the point about tree ring data. Radiocarbon data is accurate to within about 50 years when you go back a 1,000 years. Tree ring data shows a given year in that area. It's a part of the picture but is not the picture for a larger area.


....and?


The Parrot Killer
25-05-2019 21:07
James___
★★★★☆
(1349)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
This is kind of what needs to be explained;

And now for some more wanderings from James:
James___ wrote:
Solar influences are detected at the bicentennial (de Vries) frequency, although at other time scales the influence of insolation variability is weak. Approximately 90% of reconstructed grid points show warmer temperatures during the Medieval Climate Anomaly when compared to the Little Ice Age, although the magnitude varies spatially across the hemisphere. Estimates of field reconstruction skill through time and over space can guide future temporal extension and spatial expansion of the proxy network.

Proxies aren't used in science.
James___ wrote:
ie., why does insolation, the effect of atmospheric gasses is weak? You guys are fart smellas, er, fart smellers, er, smart fellas.
in·so·la·tion
/ˌinsəˈlāSH(ə)n/
nountechnical
noun: insolation

exposure to the sun's rays.
the amount of solar radiation reaching a given area.

Because the atmosphere is less dense than anything on the surface absorbing sunlight. You cannot limit insolation to a given area. You consider the entire Earth or not at all. You are trying to ignore Kirchoff's law.
James___ wrote:
And thanks to ITN we all know this comes back to the Stefan-Blotzmann constant

Sort of. It does involve surface area absorbing energy though. It also involves absorptivity, which is the same as emissivity. Neither value is known for Earth.
James___ wrote:
and how the Earth refracts solar radiation.

Absorption is not refraction.
James___ wrote:
That's basically what insolation amounts to.

Absorption is not refraction.
James___ wrote:
And yet according to tree ring data, it's weak as a variable when it comes to why trees grow.

Absorption is not refraction.
James___ wrote:
As Shriley Temple would say, it gets cuoriser and courioser. In reality, it might not. Could an increase in water vapour make solar insolation a viable constant?

Water vapor makes no difference. The Earth is the Earth.
James___ wrote:
In the reading material that I provided, no mention was made of the perceived change in relative humidity. In any atmospheric model humidity will need to be included as a variable.

Why?
James___ wrote:
I would hope that either ITN or IBDaMann would be aware of such minor details in any scientific report.

That is not a detail. It is a nonfactor.
James___ wrote:
They do need to be nit picked in minute detail. That's what science is about. Or simply put, how critical can you be? It's not about finding fault but is about insuring accuracy.

Science isn't measurement. It is not data. It does not use proxies. Science is a set of falsifiable theories only.
James___ wrote:
If anyone doesn't get it, trees grow more, have larger rings when it's warm.

WRONG. Trees grow faster when conditions favor them. Temperature is a very small factor in those conditions. Some trees do better in colder environments.
James___ wrote:
Without corresponding moisture, the increased solar radiation doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter anyway.
James___ wrote:
Yet they say increased solar radiation had little to do with growth during known warm periods.

Because you conveniently ignored Kirchoff's law.
James___ wrote:
You guys aren't that detail oriented.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that pays no attention to little details, like Kirchoff's law.



It's nice to know that you know how to use a computer ITn. Granted about everyone knows how to use one but with you it's an accomplishment.




Join the debate Weather:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The 100 Year Weather Forecast916-04-2019 15:02
Was sudden rapid temperature increase in 1980s caused by USSR collapsed and shut off their weather statio213-04-2019 23:34
Why the Guardian is putting global CO2 levels in the weather forecast209-04-2019 01:35
Extreme weather news may not change climate change skeptics' minds027-03-2019 15:47
Why Americans Might Never Notice Climate Change's Hotter Weather2212-03-2019 23:21
Articles
Appendix B - Calculating The Economic Costs of Extreme Weather Events
▲ 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