New Video : “Why Climate Scientists Are Flat Earthers”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to New Video : “Why Climate Scientists Are Flat Earthers”

  1. richard says:

    Why was the Arctic similar to today during the last ice age when the US, Canada and Asia were under Glaciers? Similar with seasonal melting.

    “Powerful deep Arctic Ocean geological heat flow forces are melting the ice, says geologist James Edward Kamis” ?

    • Latitude says:

      “”But many scientists now realize that the 1999-2007 Gakkel Ridge heat and chemically charged fluid flow event was the root cause of accelerated the Arctic sea ice melting rate.””

  2. RAH says:

    The reason why they can sell their scam is that so few people, even many of those with supposedly the best education available, don’t know much about earth sciences.
    It is beyond me how someone cannot have questioned why it is winter in the NH when it’s summer in the SH. How can a college kid never had the curiosity to find out what the definitions of the words ‘equinox; and ‘solstice, are and what the tropical lines define. How a person that has spent time in the outdoors has not observed the changing path of the sun through the sky as the seasons progress or even query at some time why do we have fewer hours of daylight in the winter than we do in the summer?

    I’ve always thought this short video asking graduating students of Harvard about what causes the seasons is a keeper.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Arts students ??

        • richard verney says:

          But is this not what was done when you studied Geography at 12 or 13? I do not understand how anyone is not aware of the tilt of the Earth. Heck, it is plainly visible when you look at a standard globe, and every school would have a globe in the class room.

          I cannot recall how old I was when I studied the seasons, but it must have been 1st or 2nd year at senior school. Everyone, studied Geography at least through to 15.

          That video of Harvard graduates/undergraduates is really shocking. How educational standards have fallen these past 50 years makes one weep.

    • Latitude says:

      …and someone’s parents paid a lot of good money for that

    • I remember the real Robert Heinlein had a character observe that the conversion of kinetic energy into heat in a bolide impact was “Elementary physics, known to everybody but intelligentsia.” Back when unfunded ex-scientists sedimented into a fifth column urging These States to disarm and surrender to benevolent Soviet altruism, hordes of expert shills echoed their pleas on talk radio. Oddly enough, not a single one of these worthies knew how to answer: “What is the definition of energy.” That hasn’t changed in the current retasking of the collectivist fifth column.

  3. BillD says:

    What’s the point of this web site with it’s blatant disinformation? I have long read a web site run by climate scientists with the name “real climate.” This web site seems to be trying to confuse people into thinking that it includes some science

    • tonyheller says:

      Moron alert

    • RAH says:

      You were obviously confused long before you came here.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “What’s the point of this web site with it’s blatant disinformation?”

      ah… you have just been to SkS, haven’t you Bilge !!

    • AndyG55 says:

      I dare you to actually counter anything that has been put forward…

      … or are you just another sad-sack yapping AGW trollette !!

    • gator69 says:

      I have long read a web site run by climate scientists with the name “real climate.”

      Ms Bill knows that we’ve always been at war with Eastasia, you can’t fool her!

    • What is the definition of energy?

    • arn says:

      For guys like you exposing wrong prediction after wrong prediction after wrong prediction is “blatant disinformation”
      as for guys like you an armada of wrong predictions and use of tampered data are truth and reality
      and real informations as long as they are presented by authorities.

      Have you ever asked youself why your climate- heroes are always wrong with their predictions??
      Being lied for 3 decades and still believing the Liar
      must be a hard delusional job.

      But maybe one day your authority enslaved mind will start to ask why
      the looney disinformators and conspiracy theorists are more often right with their predictions than your superheroes.
      Sadly your submissively dependent mind will rather keep on acceppting wrong predictions to keep your world view alive instead of making you an autnomous thinker.

      Btw-the explanation why your heroes fail while others don’t is simpel.
      The ‘looneys’ use real data,while your superheroes use and create data which fits their agenda,
      but neither reality,nor climate nor earth nor the north pole give a shit about scientific agendas and cargo cult scientists.

  4. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Real Climate? It’s like crawling through a sewer.

    • gator69 says:

      How dare you Jimmy! Sewers serve a purpose that is beneficial to mankind, and do not deserve to be demeaned by your outrageous comparison.

    • What is the definition of energy? And how do you explain Tony’s graph of decreasing temperature since 1920 using only the thermometer stations that have been working since that time?

  5. CO2isLife says:

    Green Economics: Hire People To Push Busses
    Employing Americans as bus pushers would mean jobs. These jobs would be “labor intensive,” so we could “create” plenty of them. Bus pushing, need it be said, would also benefit the environment. Getting rid of buses would go a long way in helping avert a global catastrophe. And since these jobs are largely untethered from any market forces, “we” can pay workers great salaries by relying on government subsidies. So, win, win, and win.

  6. Nicholas Schroeder says:

    Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 Figure 10

    This popular balance graphic model and assorted variations are based on a power flux, W/m^2. A W is not energy, but energy over time, i.e. 3.4 Btu/eng h or 3.6 kJ/SI h. The 342 W/m^2 ISR is determined by spreading the average discular 1,368 W/m^2 solar irradiance/constant over the spherical ToA surface area. (1,368/4 =342) There is no consideration of the elliptical orbit (perihelion = 1,415 W/m^2 to aphelion = 1,323 W/m^2) or day or night or seasons or tropospheric thickness or energy diffusion due to oblique incidence, etc.

    This popular balance models the earth as a ball suspended in a hot fluid with heat/energy/power entering evenly over the entire ToA spherical surface. This is not even close to how the real earth energy balance works. Everybody uses it. Everybody should know better.

    An example of a real heat balance based on Btu/h is as follows. Basically (Incoming Solar Radiation spread over the earth’s cross sectional area, Btu/h) = (U*A*dT et. al. leaving the lit side perpendicular to the spherical surface ToA, Btu/h) + (U*A*dT et. al. leaving the dark side perpendicular to spherical surface area ToA, Btu/h) The atmosphere is just a simple HVAC/heat flow/balance/insulation problem.

  7. Nicholas Schroeder says:

    Energy is a property ‘o stuff. No molecules, no “energy.”

    Chemical energy: Reactive action of molecules – e.g. gasoline.
    Stoichiometric balance is a measure of chemical energy.

    Physical energy: Physical energy of molecules – e.g. compressed air, elevated hydroelectric reservoir.
    Pressure is a measure of a physical property.

    Thermal energy: Kinetic motion of molecules – e.g. fire in a cast iron stove.
    Temperature is a measure of a thermal property.

    Heat is a thermal process, thermal energy moving from hot to cold. A block ‘o stuff contains energy, not heat.

    There are four basic heat transfer processes: conduction, convection, latent and radiation.

    Without molecules the concepts of energy, heat, hot & cold get a bit flakey. Is outer space hot or cold? Without molecules the terms are meaningless.

    99% of the atmosphere’s molecules are below 32 km. Below this elevation energy/heat moves by all of the processes and can be modeled by Q = U * A * (hot – cold) just like the insulated envelope of a house. Radiation is just a minor player.

    Above 32 km (or 100 km per NASA) there are no molecules and the primary mode of heat is radiative per S-B , Q = σ * ε * T^4.

    • cdquarles says:

      If you go by kinetic energy, which is the definition of thermodynamic temperature, space is hot. The particles moving through it are moving at very high speeds. Space, on the other hand is ‘cold’, in that there isn’t much stuff there in between the condensed objects. So space is hot and empty, thus contains little heat ;).

    • cdquarles says:

      Yeah, the transfer is radiative, but that does not mean what is being transfered is heat. It becomes heat when absorbed by a mass and the absorption results in that mass’s internal kinetic energy being increased such that the geometric mean of the constituent’s kinetic energy is increased.

      Still, above 100 km there are atoms and molecules still present, but the numbers per cubic meter are very small. Not zero, though. Plus the Earth both sheds atoms and molecules as well as scooping them up. Is it net zero? Maybe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *