Gosh, would you look at that? NASA thinks that "The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit".
Informed scientists understand thermodynamics enough to recognize that the Earth does not exhibit that thermodynamic property known as "temperature" (which is an equilibrium condition), and therefore an "average surface temperature" is not a thermodynamic quantity, and thus a meaningless quantity... Indeed, one published journal paper pointed out that this average was as meaningful as an "average phone number".
My subtle hint about posting claims that conflict with basic physics, things like Planck's Law, was apparently too subtle... Yes, one can disprove the claim that the average is a temperature using this basic Law.
Oh well, I've followed these claims long enough to realize that they aren't based in the sciences...
While one is at it, they should consider carefully NASA's graph of CO2 levels. This attempt to mix causation with correlation is poor. Ignoring Beer's Law is yet another violation of basic physics. Shame on you.
NASA is apparently unaware that the IPCC said this:
Code: Select all
For CO2, part of the main 15 micron band is saturated over quite short vertical distances, so that some of the upwelling radiation reaching the lower stratosphere originates from the cold upper troposphere. When the CO2 concentration is increased, the increase in absorbed radiation is quite small and increased emission leads to a cooling at all heights in the stratosphere.
How unfortunate for NASA that at least some of the scientists involved in the IPCC recognize the validity of Beer's Law. NASA is blithely unaware...
Meanwhile, it is trivial to discover that current and recent (going back a few hundred thousand years) CO2 levels indicate that the Earth is in a CO2 drought. Historical levels call the claims of catastrophe into question. Feel free to prove your claims.
Oceans warm? Until 2003 we didn't have enough ARGO buoys to provide any such data. Even now, with some 3,000 buoys, each buoy must represent an ocean area approximately the size of Lake Superior. Their claim is simply false -- any data claiming that they have detailed knowledge for deep ocean temps going back to 1969 is an outright lie. Even now, their ocean measurements are so sparse as to be barely usable.
If you are sufficiently informed on this particular system, we can also discuss the erroneous methods that they implemented in ARGO (yes, the result of mathematical massaging rather than direct, unambiguous measurements -- these buoys rise too fast for the instrumentation to stabilize, and therefore the output is "corrected"...or perhaps more correctly, falsified...).
3 of the first 3 claims found in error, I'm not going to bother continuing down through the list of false claims, hoping to find crumbs of truth. You are unaware that I've seen their nonsense before.
You'll have to present your proof, since you have only posted a fraud filled page.
And once again you attempt to invoke the same logical fallacy that has been rejected multiple times. Get with the program already!
BTW, any time you present claims and Reference 1 is "J. Cook, et al", you've lost all credibility with me. And also don't waste our time by posting links to his website...
But tell me, why does their graph start at 1880? Why yes, that's because approximately 1850 was recognized as the end of the Little Ice Age. The period was selected to conceal the variations that occurred starting about 1300, and bottoming out about 1650. They don't want to show that, better hide natural variations in order to promote your lie.
You still haven't explained how CO2 levels or humans caused the Younger Dryas period, and the variations observed during that period.
Take as much paper as you need.
musher0 wrote:Rally Behind the Science!
Indeed! How curious that you instead rally behind falsehoods that violate known Laws of science.