- An ice cube can’t melt if the temperature in the room is steady or declining.
- When glacial ice melts, the water often just disappears.
- An atmosphere with 95% CO2 can be as hot as Venus or as cold as Mars. CO2 controls the temperature, but is very fickle.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
Recent Comments
- Billyjack on COP29 Preview
- dm on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- dm on Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Tel on COP29 Preview
- Robertvd on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- GW on A Giant Eyesore
- conrad ziefle on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Greg in NZ on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- arn on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Trevor on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
4) Tropical islands rebound from glacial retreat.
5) A set of measurements that are accurate to ±1% can be averaged to produce a measurement that is within ±0.001%
5) is actually possible when you have a nonsystematic error; for instance an error with Gaussian distribution or pure noise. The problem is that in the real world it’s not easy to exclude systematic errors. Precision rises with the square root of the number of measurements in the cases where it’s possible if i recall correctly.
Every thing that does not fit the desired pattern is considered noise in climatology!
6) Real world measurements can be adjusted at will
7) If the real world measurements don’t match computer modelling, see 6
Dead on Dirk, as long as there’s no systematic error (accuracy vs precision), the uncertainty will usually improve with the sqrt(N).
However, it also depends on the frequency of the noise relative to the signal you’re trying to measure too. I leared that the hard way once….
-Scott
GISS is anti-Gaussian. They take zero points and extrapolate to many.The analogy doesn’t fit this discussion..
6. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle (climate) states that a given amount of heat can produce either warming or cooling, depending on the argument being discussed.
7. Latent heat doesn’t apply to ice. Ice will melt as soon as the surrounding temperature rises above zero Celsius. This also means that melting ice will not cool its surroundings.
8. Increased water vapour in the atmosphere won’t produce more clouds. The “hot spot” prevents that occurring.
9. Heat can “go missing” for decades, popping out when least expected, usually when the air conditioner has just packed in, or at any time if you’re a European.
6) The most heat will be found where the fewest thermometers are.
correction s/b #10
global warming makes tropical islands flip over…………..
Steve,
You’ve used the 95% argument before and you know why it’s not valid. What’s important is the absolute concentration of the GHG (moles/volume) and not its concentration relative to the total pressure (though total pressure itself is also important).
-Scott
The density of CO2 molecules in Mars atmosphere is an order of magnitude larger than on Earth, so the argument works perfectly, thank you.
I had the numbers from a spreadsheet from a previous time this came up.
The planets have approximately these densities of CO2:
Venus = 1.408 mol/m3
Earth = 0.000017 mol/m3
Mars = 0.000346 mol/m3
Mars has ~21x higher density of CO2 than Earth, and Venus has ~4070x higher density than Mars.
So yes, Mars>Earth by more than an order of magnitude.
And Venus>Mars by 3.6 orders of magnitude.
And that’s before any pressure broadening effects. Steve – you have many valid points on this site…but this is not one of them. You can argue the GHG effect if you want…but don’t make it a straw man about equal 95% numbers.
-Scott
You are completely missing the point. It is the pressure, not the composition.
Scott, darling, the so called “greenhouse effect” is derived purely by the occlusion of certain wavelengths of radiation supposedly by Carbon diOxide. The maths is left as an exercise for the apologist.
11. Steig’s principal states that temperature rises with distance from a warm object, e.g Antarctic Peninsula. This is the inverse of Hansen’s principle which states that temperature rises when approaching a cold object. Hansen’s principle is to be preferred as it requires no data for proof.
12) You can fool all of the people all of the time.
e = mc2
where e = exaggeration, m = model, c = consensus
Unlike that quaint old-fashioned version of this equation, the c varies. A 97% consensus (75 of 77) and virtually any m can produce fantastically ultra-robust unprecedented catastrophic slamdunk results that only reptile-brained planet haters can deny.
CO2 will make the earth warmer, except when it’s colder, or stays the same, unless we say so.