Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[garmerys]

These negatives were meticulously processed and restored by a Wellington photography conservator

[1715460005]

1715460005

[1715460005]

1715460005

[Spendulus]

....
I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...

It's important to understand that the ground based thermometer database is AMENDABLE TO TWEAKING.  Period.

OK, without any ad hominem attacks (which this thread seems to be descending into), can someone explain simply what's wrong with this data:
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....

Ground temperature data is okay for regional climate issue, but not global.  By it's nature, "ground temperature data" attempts to combine multiphase physical systems into an aggregate of "temperature."  To see the problem with this, consider trying to take the temperature above an ice cube, or six inches above a pan of boiling water.    These systems are not in thermal equilibrium.

A temperature reading from a polar orbiting satellite measures aspects of gas ONLY, say at 10k feet.  It is thus a measure of a system which is in thermal equilibrium and which thus is credible.

The ground temperature network is inappropriate and actually ridiculous for attempting to derive a "global temperature."   The fact that in the US, an obscure sub agency of NASA uses NOAA data to produce propaganda on "Latest record shattering Temperature <<blah blah blah>>" is irrelevant.  

A reasonable way to deal with this would be to consider as credible, the satellite data, and not as credible, the ground based thermometer networks, for matters concerning "climate change."  This will eventually come to pass, but for some years expect to see the bureaucracies built on top of the thermometer networks to continue to shout.

Too bad you weren't my science teacher....

If I am teaching or explaining science here, what grade level would you think it was?

Reflect on what that says about the ignorance of Warmers.

Does Devout Belief in Global Warming cause unlearning of eighth grade math (linear regression) and eight grade science (phases of matter)?

[Spendulus]

These negatives were meticulously processed and restored by a Wellington photography conservator

That's a truly amazing story.

http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/antarctica-conservators-discover-100-year-old-negatives

[dwma]

The clouds and water vapor are a constant. Yes, they will be affect the climate but they're a constant.  You guys like to throw in random stuff and appeal to science but never really go into detail about this stuff. I see it time and time again.  Your prose would have someone who isn't educated and intelligent give you credibility, but there really is little there.

So you believe in the science behind the basic argument of why global warming exists.  Can you tell me what has mitigated this and made it a non issue?

There is cynicism and then there is stupidity.  Those fossil fuels have been burned at a high rate over a really short span of time when you look at the history of the world. It should surprise no one that such things would not seriously impact the climate.

You guys always find one little thing and harp on it.  I'm not sure about the climate heating having paused for 19 years. There are many things that scientists attribute to the change that are already happening.  I'm sure some of these guys are wrong, but I highly doubt they're all wrong.

I can also show you how the previous month (well possibly Feb)  was the hottest month on record.

Why on earth would 'clouds and water vapor be constant'?  That assertion makes no sense on almost any time scale or any conceptual model.

A vague conceptual understanding that radiative energy transmissions occur, and CO2 has some influence on it, and it can make earth hot is a start but is not really going to do it.  Going to have to move forward a little bit from here.

In addition to starting to consider things a little bit quantitatively, two concepts to appreciate next are 'infrared opacity' and 'radiative convective equilibrium.

Here's a relatively clear explanation:

https://youtu.be/rCya4LilBZ8?t=55m30s

This lecture does a good job of illustrating the total absurdity of the whole global climate change scam.

Although maybe too technical for the reader/poster you responded to, that's a pretty good lecture. 

Lol damn I got under your skin. 

[dwma]

....
I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...

It's important to understand that the ground based thermometer database is AMENDABLE TO TWEAKING.  Period.

OK, without any ad hominem attacks (which this thread seems to be descending into), can someone explain simply what's wrong with this data:
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....

Ground temperature data is okay for regional climate issue, but not global.  By it's nature, "ground temperature data" attempts to combine multiphase physical systems into an aggregate of "temperature."  To see the problem with this, consider trying to take the temperature above an ice cube, or six inches above a pan of boiling water.    These systems are not in thermal equilibrium.

A temperature reading from a polar orbiting satellite measures aspects of gas ONLY, say at 10k feet.  It is thus a measure of a system which is in thermal equilibrium and which thus is credible.

The ground temperature network is inappropriate and actually ridiculous for attempting to derive a "global temperature."   The fact that in the US, an obscure sub agency of NASA uses NOAA data to produce propaganda on "Latest record shattering Temperature <<blah blah blah>>" is irrelevant.  

A reasonable way to deal with this would be to consider as credible, the satellite data, and not as credible, the ground based thermometer networks, for matters concerning "climate change."  This will eventually come to pass, but for some years expect to see the bureaucracies built on top of the thermometer networks to continue to shout.

Why do you keep saying at 10k feet?  Yes there are problems with the ground based temperature networks.  There are problems with taking temperatures for all sorts of reasons and I'm sure you can go into great detail.

I don't see how taking the temperature far above the planet's surface is somehow unequivocally and magically better.  That however is your jump which happens to be mighty convenient given the data.

You appeal to science by pointing out that you can take the temperature above a boiling pan vs an ice cube and have it effect the readings? Thats your example. Literally.

[Spendulus]

....
I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...

It's important to understand that the ground based thermometer database is AMENDABLE TO TWEAKING.  Period.

OK, without any ad hominem attacks (which this thread seems to be descending into), can someone explain simply what's wrong with this data:
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....

Ground temperature data is okay for regional climate issue, but not global.  By it's nature, "ground temperature data" attempts to combine multiphase physical systems into an aggregate of "temperature."  To see the problem with this, consider trying to take the temperature above an ice cube, or six inches above a pan of boiling water.    These systems are not in thermal equilibrium.

A temperature reading from a polar orbiting satellite measures aspects of gas ONLY, say at 10k feet.  It is thus a measure of a system which is in thermal equilibrium and which thus is credible.

The ground temperature network is inappropriate and actually ridiculous for attempting to derive a "global temperature."   The fact that in the US, an obscure sub agency of NASA uses NOAA data to produce propaganda on "Latest record shattering Temperature <<blah blah blah>>" is irrelevant.  

A reasonable way to deal with this would be to consider as credible, the satellite data, and not as credible, the ground based thermometer networks, for matters concerning "climate change."  This will eventually come to pass, but for some years expect to see the bureaucracies built on top of the thermometer networks to continue to shout.

Why do you keep saying at 10k feet? Yes there are problems with the ground based temperature networks.  There are problems with taking temperatures for all sorts of reasons and I'm sure you can go into great detail.

I don't see how taking the temperature far above the planet's surface is somehow unequivocally and magically better. That however is your jump which happens to be mighty convenient given the data.

You appeal to science by pointing out that you can take the temperature above a boiling pan vs an ice cube and have it effect the readings? Thats your example. Literally.

A number of altitudes are referenced by satellite temperature systems.  10k is just one of them.

2nd bolded statement.  Well, if you didn't understand what I said.  Maybe you might want to think it out.  Maybe a first year physics textbook?

[dwma]

....
I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...

It's important to understand that the ground based thermometer database is AMENDABLE TO TWEAKING.  Period.

OK, without any ad hominem attacks (which this thread seems to be descending into), can someone explain simply what's wrong with this data:
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....

Ground temperature data is okay for regional climate issue, but not global.  By it's nature, "ground temperature data" attempts to combine multiphase physical systems into an aggregate of "temperature."  To see the problem with this, consider trying to take the temperature above an ice cube, or six inches above a pan of boiling water.    These systems are not in thermal equilibrium.

A temperature reading from a polar orbiting satellite measures aspects of gas ONLY, say at 10k feet.  It is thus a measure of a system which is in thermal equilibrium and which thus is credible.

The ground temperature network is inappropriate and actually ridiculous for attempting to derive a "global temperature."   The fact that in the US, an obscure sub agency of NASA uses NOAA data to produce propaganda on "Latest record shattering Temperature <<blah blah blah>>" is irrelevant.  

A reasonable way to deal with this would be to consider as credible, the satellite data, and not as credible, the ground based thermometer networks, for matters concerning "climate change."  This will eventually come to pass, but for some years expect to see the bureaucracies built on top of the thermometer networks to continue to shout.

Why do you keep saying at 10k feet? Yes there are problems with the ground based temperature networks.  There are problems with taking temperatures for all sorts of reasons and I'm sure you can go into great detail.

I don't see how taking the temperature far above the planet's surface is somehow unequivocally and magically better. That however is your jump which happens to be mighty convenient given the data.

You appeal to science by pointing out that you can take the temperature above a boiling pan vs an ice cube and have it effect the readings? Thats your example. Literally.

A number of altitudes are referenced by satellite temperature systems.  10k is just one of them.

2nd bolded statement.  Well, if you didn't understand what I said.  Maybe you might want to think it out.  Maybe a first year physics textbook?

I understand what you say, but it is still just an arbitrary subjective opinion about discounting temperatures sources. I'll probably read into the satellite stuff a bit more because it seems to be important in your argument. I agree there will be longterm biases on temperatures taken by individuals.

At this point there is enough extra melted ice to realize that yes things are very significantly changing.  It isn't some big global conspiracy that is happening. All the data you don't agree with will have some possible source of bias.

It is sort of obvious so I didn't find it worth bringing up, but the temperature at 10k feet is going to be signficantly less affected by global warming. The average temperature is already way lower at 10k feet vs sea-level/surface. Greenhouse gasses at the ground will also be catching the highest level of radiation intensity. I'm not going to explain all this because thats not my thing. It should be obvious if you actually understand how this stuff works. My point here is that you just randomly ignore all this, and treat these satellite measurements to be near perfection when it isn't even measuring what needs to be measured - the surface temperature.

TLDR;
 you basically cherry pick your data.

[hdbuck]

craig wright is responsible for gobal warming.

[Spendulus]

....
I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...

It's important to understand that the ground based thermometer database is AMENDABLE TO TWEAKING.  Period.

OK, without any ad hominem attacks (which this thread seems to be descending into), can someone explain simply what's wrong with this data:
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....

Ground temperature data is okay for regional climate issue, but not global.  By it's nature, "ground temperature data" attempts to combine multiphase physical systems into an aggregate of "temperature."  To see the problem with this, consider trying to take the temperature above an ice cube, or six inches above a pan of boiling water.    These systems are not in thermal equilibrium.

A temperature reading from a polar orbiting satellite measures aspects of gas ONLY, say at 10k feet.  It is thus a measure of a system which is in thermal equilibrium and which thus is credible.

The ground temperature network is inappropriate and actually ridiculous for attempting to derive a "global temperature."   The fact that in the US, an obscure sub agency of NASA uses NOAA data to produce propaganda on "Latest record shattering Temperature <<blah blah blah>>" is irrelevant.  

A reasonable way to deal with this would be to consider as credible, the satellite data, and not as credible, the ground based thermometer networks, for matters concerning "climate change."  This will eventually come to pass, but for some years expect to see the bureaucracies built on top of the thermometer networks to continue to shout.

Why do you keep saying at 10k feet? Yes there are problems with the ground based temperature networks.  There are problems with taking temperatures for all sorts of reasons and I'm sure you can go into great detail.

I don't see how taking the temperature far above the planet's surface is somehow unequivocally and magically better. That however is your jump which happens to be mighty convenient given the data.

You appeal to science by pointing out that you can take the temperature above a boiling pan vs an ice cube and have it effect the readings? Thats your example. Literally.

A number of altitudes are referenced by satellite temperature systems.  10k is just one of them.

2nd bolded statement.  Well, if you didn't understand what I said.  Maybe you might want to think it out.  Maybe a first year physics textbook?

I understand what you say, but it is still just an arbitrary subjective opinion about discounting temperatures sources. I'll probably read into the satellite stuff a bit more because it seems to be important in your argument. I agree there will be longterm biases on temperatures taken by individuals.

At this point there is enough extra melted ice to realize that yes things are very significantly changing.  It isn't some big global conspiracy that is happening. All the data you don't agree with will have some possible source of bias.

It is sort of obvious so I didn't find it worth bringing up, but the temperature at 10k feet is going to be signficantly less affected by global warming. The average temperature is already way lower at 10k feet vs sea-level/surface. Greenhouse gasses at the ground will also be catching the highest level of radiation intensity. I'm not going to explain all this because thats not my thing. It should be obvious if you actually understand how this stuff works. My point here is that you just randomly ignore all this, and treat these satellite measurements to be near perfection when it isn't even measuring what needs to be measured - the surface temperature.

TLDR;
 you basically cherry pick your data.

The question was this.

If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....

That's the question I answered.  And no, answering a question from the point of view of thermodynamics and the third law is not an arbitrary subjective opinion.  It's a scientific rebuttal.  I believe that was what was asked for.

Bolded above is inaccurate.  Retention of heat in the atmosphere by CO2 absorption is not highest next to the ground but lowest.  Think about it.  Solar rays enter the atmosphere and immediately certain spectra are absorbed.  Some rays continue down 100k feet. .... 80k...60k....40k...20k...surface.  By the gas laws and partial pressures, CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere.   In other words, there cannot be a higher percentage of CO2 in one place than another, such as can be the case with water vapor.  (This is true over time and globally.  Regionally, one can see higher ppm of CO2 next to a factory, a volcano, downwind of a city, etc.  Mixing of two gases occurs rapidly, basically at the speed of sound in the gases IIRC)

The meaning of this with respect to the CO2 absorption spectra is by the time sunlight gets to the ground those lines are already long gone.  I don't think this is related to the central issue you are concerned about though.  Say you have a pot on the stove.  You add heat to one corner of it or another, or at the base or half way up, it will all equilibrate pretty quickly.  Not so with the Earth.

[popcorn1]

....
I understand that some of this data may been tweaked...

It's important to understand that the ground based thermometer database is AMENDABLE TO TWEAKING.  Period.

OK, without any ad hominem attacks (which this thread seems to be descending into), can someone explain simply what's wrong with this data:
....
Specifically, the claim that the GMST in 2015 was the warmest since 1880, and that "15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurred since 2001".
....
If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....

Ground temperature data is okay for regional climate issue, but not global.  By it's nature, "ground temperature data" attempts to combine multiphase physical systems into an aggregate of "temperature."  To see the problem with this, consider trying to take the temperature above an ice cube, or six inches above a pan of boiling water.    These systems are not in thermal equilibrium.

A temperature reading from a polar orbiting satellite measures aspects of gas ONLY, say at 10k feet.  It is thus a measure of a system which is in thermal equilibrium and which thus is credible.

The ground temperature network is inappropriate and actually ridiculous for attempting to derive a "global temperature."   The fact that in the US, an obscure sub agency of NASA uses NOAA data to produce propaganda on "Latest record shattering Temperature <<blah blah blah>>" is irrelevant.  

A reasonable way to deal with this would be to consider as credible, the satellite data, and not as credible, the ground based thermometer networks, for matters concerning "climate change."  This will eventually come to pass, but for some years expect to see the bureaucracies built on top of the thermometer networks to continue to shout.

Why do you keep saying at 10k feet? Yes there are problems with the ground based temperature networks.  There are problems with taking temperatures for all sorts of reasons and I'm sure you can go into great detail.

I don't see how taking the temperature far above the planet's surface is somehow unequivocally and magically better. That however is your jump which happens to be mighty convenient given the data.

You appeal to science by pointing out that you can take the temperature above a boiling pan vs an ice cube and have it effect the readings? Thats your example. Literally.

A number of altitudes are referenced by satellite temperature systems.  10k is just one of them.

2nd bolded statement.  Well, if you didn't understand what I said.  Maybe you might want to think it out.  Maybe a first year physics textbook?

I understand what you say, but it is still just an arbitrary subjective opinion about discounting temperatures sources. I'll probably read into the satellite stuff a bit more because it seems to be important in your argument. I agree there will be longterm biases on temperatures taken by individuals.

At this point there is enough extra melted ice to realize that yes things are very significantly changing.  It isn't some big global conspiracy that is happening. All the data you don't agree with will have some possible source of bias.

It is sort of obvious so I didn't find it worth bringing up, but the temperature at 10k feet is going to be signficantly less affected by global warming. The average temperature is already way lower at 10k feet vs sea-level/surface. Greenhouse gasses at the ground will also be catching the highest level of radiation intensity. I'm not going to explain all this because thats not my thing. It should be obvious if you actually understand how this stuff works. My point here is that you just randomly ignore all this, and treat these satellite measurements to be near perfection when it isn't even measuring what needs to be measured - the surface temperature.

TLDR;
 you basically cherry pick your data.

The question was this.

If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....

That's the question I answered.  And no, answering a question from the point of view of thermodynamics and the third law is not an arbitrary subjective opinion.  It's a scientific rebuttal.  I believe that was what was asked for.

Bolded above is inaccurate.  Retention of heat in the atmosphere by CO2 absorption is not highest next to the ground but lowest.  Think about it.  Solar rays enter the atmosphere and immediately certain spectra are absorbed.  Some rays continue down 100k feet. .... 80k...60k....40k...20k...surface.  By the gas laws and partial pressures, CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere.   In other words, there cannot be a higher percentage of CO2 in one place than another, such as can be the case with water vapor.  (This is true over time and globally.  Regionally, one can see higher ppm of CO2 next to a factory, a volcano, downwind of a city, etc.  Mixing of two gases occurs rapidly, basically at the speed of sound in the gases IIRC)

The meaning of this with respect to the CO2 absorption spectra is by the time sunlight gets to the ground those lines are already long gone.  I don't think this is related to the central issue you are concerned about though.  Say you have a pot on the stove.  You add heat to one corner of it or another, or at the base or half way up, it will all equilibrate pretty quickly.  Not so with the Earth.

No where ever the heat is most concentrated it's the most hottest always
Same with CO2..More cars more factories in your area the more chance of cancer ..POLLUTION..
Also the science you know is not to be taken seriously..
You think the twin towers fell by fire also building 7 fell by fire..So we can safely say Your science knowledge is piss poor..

[Spendulus]

Same with CO2..More cars more factories in your area the more chance of cancer ..POLLUTION..
Also the science you know is not to be taken seriously..
You think the twin towers fell by fire also building 7 fell by fire..So we can safely say Your science knowledge is piss poor..

lol, if we ever meet up I am buying the beer.

I have never met anyone who so earnestly and sincerely started with the desired conclusion, and worked backwards to select and make the facts fit with it.

[dwma]

The question was this.

If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....

That's the question I answered.  And no, answering a question from the point of view of thermodynamics and the third law is not an arbitrary subjective opinion.  It's a scientific rebuttal.  I believe that was what was asked for.

Bolded above is inaccurate.  Retention of heat in the atmosphere by CO2 absorption is not highest next to the ground but lowest.  Think about it.  Solar rays enter the atmosphere and immediately certain spectra are absorbed.  Some rays continue down 100k feet. .... 80k...60k....40k...20k...surface.  By the gas laws and partial pressures, CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere.   In other words, there cannot be a higher percentage of CO2 in one place than another, such as can be the case with water vapor.  (This is true over time and globally.  Regionally, one can see higher ppm of CO2 next to a factory, a volcano, downwind of a city, etc.  Mixing of two gases occurs rapidly, basically at the speed of sound in the gases IIRC)

The meaning of this with respect to the CO2 absorption spectra is by the time sunlight gets to the ground those lines are already long gone.  I don't think this is related to the central issue you are concerned about though.  Say you have a pot on the stove.  You add heat to one corner of it or another, or at the base or half way up, it will all equilibrate pretty quickly.  Not so with the Earth.

You ignored my question and I still stand behind my point.

I am under the impression that the rate of spectral absorption by CO2/greenhouse gasses is dependent on the frequency of the radiation. As the rays hit the earth the radiation shifts in frequency. It is the difference in how the these 2 spectrum responses work that make up a large portion of the effect of global warming. You seem to think it is simpler than that given your response.

I'll tell you why sat. data is not as useful. It is because not much lives up in the atmosphere.  Those temperatures are only important in an indirect manner.  Surface temperate data would be much more useful. While you give valid reasons, it isn't enough to be convincing as to why we should prefer data of temperatures far above the Earth where it only impacts us indirectly. IMO, you're just cherry picking your data.

[Spendulus]

The question was this.

If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....

That's the question I answered.  And no, answering a question from the point of view of thermodynamics and the third law is not an arbitrary subjective opinion.  It's a scientific rebuttal.  I believe that was what was asked for.

Bolded above is inaccurate.  Retention of heat in the atmosphere by CO2 absorption is not highest next to the ground but lowest.  Think about it.  Solar rays enter the atmosphere and immediately certain spectra are absorbed.  Some rays continue down 100k feet. .... 80k...60k....40k...20k...surface.  By the gas laws and partial pressures, CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere.   In other words, there cannot be a higher percentage of CO2 in one place than another, such as can be the case with water vapor.  (This is true over time and globally.  Regionally, one can see higher ppm of CO2 next to a factory, a volcano, downwind of a city, etc.  Mixing of two gases occurs rapidly, basically at the speed of sound in the gases IIRC)

The meaning of this with respect to the CO2 absorption spectra is by the time sunlight gets to the ground those lines are already long gone.  I don't think this is related to the central issue you are concerned about though.  Say you have a pot on the stove.  You add heat to one corner of it or another, or at the base or half way up, it will all equilibrate pretty quickly.  Not so with the Earth.

You ignored my question and I still stand behind my point.

I am under the impression that the rate of spectral absorption by CO2/greenhouse gasses is dependent on the frequency of the radiation. As the rays hit the earth the radiation shifts in frequency. It is the difference in how the these 2 spectrum responses work that make up a large portion of the effect of global warming. You seem to think it is simpler than that given your response.

I'll tell you why sat. data is not as useful. It is because not much lives up in the atmosphere.  Those temperatures are only important in an indirect manner.  Surface temperate data would be much more useful. While you give valid reasons, it isn't enough to be convincing as to why we should prefer data of temperatures far above the Earth where it only impacts us indirectly. IMO, you're just cherry picking your data.

If your questions are vague and imprecise, then another must guess at their meaning.  That's not exactly ignoring a question.

Bolded above makes no sense.  CO2 absorbs specific spectral lines.

Then "as the rays hit the earth radiation shifts in frequency."  This probably is your way of saying that although visible light is absorbed by the CO2 molecule, infra red (heat) is emitted.

Then "it is the difference in how these 2 spectral responses work..."  This makes no sense.  Anyway the IR emission is the heat.  Radiant heat is the IR.

As for "surface temperature data would be much more useful," it does not matter if the "surface temperature data" cannot be precisely measured, and it cannot, as I previously illustrated.  

The meteorological phrase "Lapse Rate" refers to the difference in temperature with altitude.  It is 3C per 1000 meters.  So from a data set of 10k foot altitudes, "ground temperatures" can easily be computed.  The equations for Lapse Rate describe functions of a gaseous envelope in a gravitational field.  They are not opinions.

It's rather laughable to advocate a bunch of scattered, irregular thermometers on the ground as opposed to satellite measurements for reasons of figuring a "global temperature."  As previously noted, of course there's no problem with using a ground based temperature to find local or regional temperature.  Say up to a 500 mile diameter around, maybe.

I get the impression you do not understand these mechanisms.  Nothing wrong with that but argue about stuff you don't understand?

[streazight]

The answer was found in the form of proactive moderation

[Spendulus]

The answer was found in the form of proactive moderation

Creating the intellectual desert of reddit climate today....

....causing the creation of this single thread, which has garnered a half million views?

.....let's have some more libtardian proactive moderation, buddy.

[dwma]

The question was this.

If the data is invalid, I would appreciate a clear and concise explanation as to why this is the case. ....

That's the question I answered.  And no, answering a question from the point of view of thermodynamics and the third law is not an arbitrary subjective opinion.  It's a scientific rebuttal.  I believe that was what was asked for.

Bolded above is inaccurate.  Retention of heat in the atmosphere by CO2 absorption is not highest next to the ground but lowest.  Think about it.  Solar rays enter the atmosphere and immediately certain spectra are absorbed.  Some rays continue down 100k feet. .... 80k...60k....40k...20k...surface.  By the gas laws and partial pressures, CO2 is evenly distributed in the atmosphere.   In other words, there cannot be a higher percentage of CO2 in one place than another, such as can be the case with water vapor.  (This is true over time and globally.  Regionally, one can see higher ppm of CO2 next to a factory, a volcano, downwind of a city, etc.  Mixing of two gases occurs rapidly, basically at the speed of sound in the gases IIRC)

The meaning of this with respect to the CO2 absorption spectra is by the time sunlight gets to the ground those lines are already long gone.  I don't think this is related to the central issue you are concerned about though.  Say you have a pot on the stove.  You add heat to one corner of it or another, or at the base or half way up, it will all equilibrate pretty quickly.  Not so with the Earth.

You ignored my question and I still stand behind my point.

I am under the impression that the rate of spectral absorption by CO2/greenhouse gasses is dependent on the frequency of the radiation. As the rays hit the earth the radiation shifts in frequency. It is the difference in how the these 2 spectrum responses work that make up a large portion of the effect of global warming. You seem to think it is simpler than that given your response.

I'll tell you why sat. data is not as useful. It is because not much lives up in the atmosphere.  Those temperatures are only important in an indirect manner.  Surface temperate data would be much more useful. While you give valid reasons, it isn't enough to be convincing as to why we should prefer data of temperatures far above the Earth where it only impacts us indirectly. IMO, you're just cherry picking your data.

If your questions are vague and imprecise, then another must guess at their meaning.  That's not exactly ignoring a question.

Bolded above makes no sense.  CO2 absorbs specific spectral lines.

Then "as the rays hit the earth radiation shifts in frequency."  This probably is your way of saying that although visible light is absorbed by the CO2 molecule, infra red (heat) is emitted.

Then "it is the difference in how these 2 spectral responses work..."  This makes no sense.  Anyway the IR emission is the heat.  Radiant heat is the IR.

As for "surface temperature data would be much more useful," it does not matter if the "surface temperature data" cannot be precisely measured, and it cannot, as I previously illustrated.  

The meteorological phrase "Lapse Rate" refers to the difference in temperature with altitude.  It is 3C per 1000 meters.  So from a data set of 10k foot altitudes, "ground temperatures" can easily be computed.  The equations for Lapse Rate describe functions of a gaseous envelope in a gravitational field.  They are not opinions.

It's rather laughable to advocate a bunch of scattered, irregular thermometers on the ground as opposed to satellite measurements for reasons of figuring a "global temperature."  As previously noted, of course there's no problem with using a ground based temperature to find local or regional temperature.  Say up to a 500 mile diameter around, maybe.

I get the impression you do not understand these mechanisms.  Nothing wrong with that but argue about stuff you don't understand?

I'm not sure if you are serious about not understanding what I said. You are better at describing these things, and you have obviously studied the subject more. I said nothing wrong, just somewhat different terminology which I have to make up on the spot. Further explaining what I said is not really doing anything I couldn't have also done, but holy moly don't kill yourself with your own back-patting.

In your previous argument your whole line of reasoning seemed to be based on the rays hitting the earth and being absorbed at a constant rate per CO2 when in reality the radiation shifts in frequency and the "spectral lines" change. This added complexity explains why you want temperatures on the ground. Now in order to correct me, you seem to understand it far better. Whatever. Your goal seems to be win the argument via being moronically and selectively pedantic.

There is no argument why satellite based temperatures are preferred except that they remove individual biases of stations and should allow a finer granularity of data. Having it come from one source is not inherently different than coming from thousands of sources. The issue obviously doesn't have a clear solution, yet you go with satellite temperatures because the data agrees with you. As much as you appeal to science, your own seems quite lacking. You do give a good place to look into criticisms.

There are large areas of ice that seem to be receding at a higher than normal rate. Enough that it seems quite exceptional to not believe global warming has and is ongoing. Perhaps there are biases here in play, but whats your answer for that ? 

[Spendulus]

If your questions are vague and imprecise, then another must guess at their meaning.  That's not exactly ignoring a question.

Bolded above makes no sense.  CO2 absorbs specific spectral lines.

Then "as the rays hit the earth radiation shifts in frequency."  This probably is your way of saying that although visible light is absorbed by the CO2 molecule, infra red (heat) is emitted.

Then "it is the difference in how these 2 spectral responses work..."  This makes no sense.  Anyway the IR emission is the heat.  Radiant heat is the IR.

As for "surface temperature data would be much more useful," it does not matter if the "surface temperature data" cannot be precisely measured, and it cannot, as I previously illustrated.  

The meteorological phrase "Lapse Rate" refers to the difference in temperature with altitude.  It is 3C per 1000 meters.  So from a data set of 10k foot altitudes, "ground temperatures" can easily be computed.  The equations for Lapse Rate describe functions of a gaseous envelope in a gravitational field.  They are not opinions.

It's rather laughable to advocate a bunch of scattered, irregular thermometers on the ground as opposed to satellite measurements for reasons of figuring a "global temperature."  As previously noted, of course there's no problem with using a ground based temperature to find local or regional temperature.  Say up to a 500 mile diameter around, maybe.

I get the impression you do not understand these mechanisms.  Nothing wrong with that but argue about stuff you don't understand?

I'm not sure if you are serious about not understanding what I said. You are better at describing these things, and you have obviously studied the subject more. I said nothing wrong, just somewhat different terminology which I have to make up on the spot. Further explaining what I said is not really doing anything I couldn't have also done, but holy moly don't kill yourself with your own back-patting.

In your previous argument your whole line of reasoning seemed to be based on the rays hitting the earth and being absorbed at a constant rate per CO2 when in reality the radiation shifts in frequency and the "spectral lines" change. This added complexity explains why you want temperatures on the ground. Now in order to correct me, you seem to understand it far better. Whatever. Your goal seems to be win the argument via being moronically and selectively pedantic.

There is no argument why satellite based temperatures are preferred except that they remove individual biases of stations and should allow a finer granularity of data. Having it come from one source is not inherently different than coming from thousands of sources. The issue obviously doesn't have a clear solution, yet you go with satellite temperatures because the data agrees with you. As much as you appeal to science, your own seems quite lacking. You do give a good place to look into criticisms.

There are large areas of ice that seem to be receding at a higher than normal rate. Enough that it seems quite exceptional to not believe global warming has and is ongoing. Perhaps there are biases here in play, but whats your answer for that ? 

[/quote]Yes, I am guessing at what you mean.  So clearly I could get your intent wrong.  However, you don't understand the physics.  See bolded above.

"rays hit the earth"

No, first they hit the atmosphere.  Various spectral lines are absorbed by water vapor, co2, and other molecules.  Probably zero of the energy in those spectral lines ever touches the actual ground, because they are used up pretty high up in the air.  Maybe the exception is at the Poles when conditions are such that there is no water vapor in the air.

Thus, the effect of "global warming" should be seen easily in the air, and that has been a prediction of global warming theory.  Essentially the air heats up and the ground heats up from that, not the ground heats and then the air.

2nd bolded.   Yes, it is different as I explained in my first post on this subject.  No need to repeat or revise that.



There are large areas of ice that seem to be receding at a higher than normal rate. Enough that it seems quite exceptional to not believe global warming has and is ongoing. Perhaps there are biases here in play, but whats your answer for that ? 

First, you can't say "Ice is exceeding and that means the ground temperature network is better."  That's ridiculous.  A discussion about sensors, accuracy and resolution stands alone.  One might say "Hmm...that's curious.  Ice is receding but the more accurate temperature sensors does not show a drop in temperature...)  That's a valid point for discussion.

What I would likely do to investigate that would be to first take the satellite data for the polar region and examine it.  I don't know offhand if it shows local and regional changes in temperature, could be that it does.  (Example - not saying this is accurate, just for discussion.  N Pole +2C, S Pole -2C.  Net change, 0)

[Schleicher]

No, first they hit the atmosphere.  Various spectral lines are absorbed by water vapor, co2, and other molecules.  Probably zero of the energy in those spectral lines ever touches the actual ground, because they are used up pretty high up in the air.  Maybe the exception is at the Poles when conditions are such that there is no water vapor in the air.

No, CO2 doesn't absorb the sun light since most of the sun's radiation is visible light and near IR, not thermal IR.
Ozone and water vapor are absorbing a little bit.

[Spendulus]

No, first they hit the atmosphere.  Various spectral lines are absorbed by water vapor, co2, and other molecules.  Probably zero of the energy in those spectral lines ever touches the actual ground, because they are used up pretty high up in the air.  Maybe the exception is at the Poles when conditions are such that there is no water vapor in the air.

No, CO2 doesn't absorb the sun light since most of the sun's radiation is visible light and near IR, not thermal IR.
Ozone and water vapor are absorbing a little bit.

You are welcome to try to do a better job of understanding what this guy is trying to say and commenting on it. 

In your previous argument your whole line of reasoning seemed to be based on the rays hitting the earth and being absorbed at a constant rate per CO2 when in reality the radiation shifts in frequency and the "spectral lines" change. This added complexity explains why you want temperatures on the ground.

[Moloch]

FWIW, if you look at that chart...

You can plainly see, that the sun is barely even emitting light at the frequencies in the middle of the spectrum (top portion labelled spectral intensity)
Even where there is no spike to absorb the rays, they are non-existent because the sun is not producing photons of that frequency

The only absorption spike that CO2 has, which is not covered by the vastly more abundant water vapor... is in this range... where there is nothing to absorb because nothing is being emitted from the sun at those frequencies


This alone is enough to debunk the hypothesis that CO2 is causing global warming