NASA: direct proof of man caused GW

[Into the Night]

They are some dumb, gullible creatins

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is denying physics here.

 

[Into the Night]

They are putins pen pals

Putin wants Democrats in power. He has said so many times.

 

[Into the Night]

Putin has only one real source of income



OIL



Not to mention he has a nation that is mostly a frozen waste land


Global warming sounds good to him

Define 'global warming'.

 

[Into the Night]

They are also the same people who claim the election was stolen, that Floyd died of a drug overdose, the government is out to confiscate your guns and that Trump was a great president.

Quite right.

Because the Democrats caused the election to fault, installed Biden, overthrew the federal government and are converting it into an oligarchy, made a criminal a God, want to ban guns (and deny the rest of the Constitution as well), and suffer from a bad case of TDS.

 

[Into the Night]

And are all fox viewers

Nope. Don't watch Fox.

 

[Into the Night]

Science

You hate it


And math


And history


In fox you trust

Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I only hate your lies about science.

He denies science, specifically the 1st law of thermodynamics.

......and math.

He denies mathematics, specifically statistical and probability mathematics.

......and history.

He denies history, even recent history.

 

[Into the Night]

Some people have mastered the art of believing exactly what they want.

Like you?

They believe Trump cared about them or the country.

He has already demonstrated it.

They believe global warming is a hoax.

Define 'global warming'. Arguing a buzzword as a so-called 'disaster' is a hoax.

They believe Gaetz was not having sex with minors. They believe Chauvin was just doing his job and Floyd just died of old age at a bad time.

Floyd died of a drug overdose.

Few believe some of the right-wing crap.

You don't get to speak for everyone. You are not God. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy.

Almost all believe every damn conspiracy and position of the far-right spurts out and think that proves they are thinking for themselves.

The Democrat party is a conspiracy.

 

[Into the Night]

It's more bullshit from Gavin Schmidt and NASA GISS. Trump should have fired him while he had the chance!

Agreed. Unfortunately, he didn't.

 

[Into the Night]

.
Here's some real science for you, not that a Californicator like you would grok any of it!!

Not so innocent as it looks, a pertinent question is asked by Judith Curry on Twitter:

There is no science anywhere in this post.

.
How much of a change in cloudiness would it take to account for the 0.53 W/m2 increase in TOA radiative forcing since 2003?

There is no such thing as 'radiative forcing'. Buzzword fallacy.

.
She asks it in relation with a recent article accepted for publication on Observational evidence of increasing global radiative forcing (Kramer et al., 2021).

Buzzword fallacy.

Abstract. “Changes in atmospheric composition, such as increasing greenhouse gases,

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. She is ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

cause an initial radiative imbalance

There is no such thing as 'radiative imbalance'. Buzzword fallacy.

to the climate system,

Climate is not a system. Climate is a subjective description of conditions.

quantified as the instantaneous radiative forcing.

Buzzword fallacy.

This fundamental metric has not been directly observed globally

Undefined words are not metrics. You can't observe what you cannot define.

and previous estimates have come from models.

Random numbers generated by a computer are not data.

In part, this is because current space‐based instruments cannot distinguish the instantaneous radiative forcing from the climate’s radiative response.

There is no such thing as 'radiative response' either. Buzzword fallacies.

We apply radiative kernels to satellite observations to disentangle these components and find all‐sky instantaneous radiative forcing has increased

You can't 'disentangle' what cannot be defined. Buzzword fallacy.

0.53±0.11 W/m2 from 2003 through 2018,

Random numbers. Argument from randU fallacy.

accounting for positive trends in the total planetary radiative imbalance.

No such thing. Buzzword fallacy.

This increase has been due to a combination of rising concentrations of well‐mixed greenhouse gases

No such thing. You can't create energy out of nothing.

and recent reductions in aerosol emissions.

Buzzword fallacy. Define 'aerosol emissions'. What are they?. What is their chemical makeup?

These results highlight distinct fingerprints of anthropogenic activity in Earth’s changing energy budget,

Earth doesn't have an energy budget. Buzzword fallacies.

which we find observations can detect within 4 years.”

You cannot observe what you cannot define.

This question touches a central point of climate science

Climate is not a science.

because it cannot be an experimental science

Climate is not a science.

in which one can play with parameters in isolation from each other.

There are no parameters to something you cannot define.

Only a few limited ongoing instrumental observations

You cannot observe what you cannot define, even with instruments.

and palaeolithic reconstructions

In other words, making shit up.

may serve to try to distinguish natural from anthropogenic processes,

Define 'natural' vs 'anthropogenic'. Buzzword fallacies.

in particular radiative forcing processes.

No such thing. Buzzword fallacy.

However, most of this job, if not all of it, takes place in silico.

Define 'silico'. What job? Void argument fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.

The question can also be formulated in a more general way:

There is no question about what is not defined.

Is it at all possible, at global scope and by instrumental observations, to distinguish the causes of radiative forcing difference of 0.53 W·m-2 over a time period of 15 years?

Argument from randU fallacy (made up numbers). Buzzword fallacies.

To the cloudiness suggestion:

From a simple, two-layer energy balance budget it can be estimated that, all other things remaining constant, a 1% increase in cloudiness (which amounts to approx. 66% overall) may induce a temperature increase of 0.54 °C at the Earth surface and of 0.45 °C at the top of atmosphere (TOA)
Without consideration for any system feedback, a radiative forcing of 0.53 Wm-2 would induce a temperature rise of 0.11 °C at the surface, and 0.18 °C at TOA.

Argument from randU fallacies. Buzzword fallacies.

To obtain a same temperature increase, thus to respond to a forcing of 0.53 Wm-‑2, it would take a change in cloudiness by 0.27 % for the surface, or by 0.4 % for the TOA.

Argument from randU fallacies. Buzzword fallacies.

Is cloudiness, or change of cloudiness, measurable with such accuracy and precision at the aggregated global scope? What was it in 2003, and in 2018?

It is not possible to measure the global cloud cover or any effect it might have. Void reference fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy.

From an overall energy balance perspective:

Earth does not have an 'energy balance'. Buzzword fallacy.

In general, and to simplify, modelers estimate all incoming and outgoing heat fluxes,

Redundancy. Buzzword fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy.

and let any remaining quantity warm or cool the oceans,

The temperature of the oceans are unknown. They cannot be measured.

thus reporting a so-called accumulated ocean heat or “heat content anomaly”.

Heat is not possible to accumulate. Heat has no content. Buzzword fallacy. Denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

According to NASA, over the 1993–2019 period, a heat flux anomaly of 0.36 to 0.41 Wm-2 for the first 700 m of depth would have accumulated.

It is not possible to accumulate heat.

Over time, other heat release periods should also occur so that the imbalance does not let us boil or freeze for ever (it never did).

Heat does not 'release'. Heat has no content. Heat has no 'balance'. This person obviously has no idea what 'heat' even means.

Over this time period of 26 years, this heat flux would have implied a temperature change to a well homogenized 700-meter water column of 0.10 to 0.11 °C, a hard to measure change.

Redundancy. Argument from randU fallacy.

A question, similar to the previous one, arises regarding instrumental observation: is it at all possible to measure such heat accumulation precisely, accurately, and at the aggregated global scope (by localized temperature monitoring or any other valid method)?

It is not possible to 'accumulate' heat. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

In all these evaluations, errors will have to be taken into account;

I have listed several critical errors to this paper. They are NOT being taken into account.

those arising from instrumental imprecisions and inaccuracies,

Tolerance is not the issue. Margin of error and lack of a declaration of variance is, and a lack of available thermometers is, and biased raw data is.

those that are embedded in the data massaging process (averaging over time and locations),

You cannot use cooked data in statistical math. Math error.

and systemic ones deriving from incomplete and imperfect model designs, their parametrization and simplifications.

You cannot use random numbers as data. Math error.

Said differently: the resulting balance sheet of any model should entail an account for garbage;

It's all garbage.

but it appears that it is at the same time the energy accumulating in oceans.

Now she is ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot decrease entropy...ever.

The NASA-Goddard simplified representations does not show any; others (Trenberth, Fasullo, & Kiehl, 2009) show an “net absorbed” of 0.9 W·m-2 or the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) indicates a “Surface imbalance” of 0,6 ±0.17 W·m-2 (one appreciates the margin precision).

Earth does not have an 'energy budget'. You cannot reduce entropy...ever. Denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

However, taking into account all potential errors, the true range of validity of this imbalance may well be of the order of hundreds of percent, thus challenging the narrative of a ticking time bomb accumulated in the ocean depths.

Denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Denial of statistical mathematics.

One final question must be addressed to the climate science community:

Climate is not a science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

will the heat accumulated

You cannot accumulate heat.

in the oceans ever be realized by the surface climate?

There is no such thing as a 'surface climate'. Buzzword fallacy.

References

Kramer, R. J., He, H., Soden, B. J., Oreopoulos, L., Myhre, G., Forster, P. M., & Smith, C. J. (2021). Observational evidence of increasing global radiative forcing. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(e2020GL091585). https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL091585

Trenberth, K. E., Fasullo, J. T., & Kiehl, J. (2009). Earth’s global energy budget.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90(3), 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1

About the author:

Michel de Rougemont, chemical engineer, Dr sc tech, is an independent consultant. www.mr-int.ch
In his activities in fine chemicals and agriculture, he is confronted, without fearing them, to various environmental and safety challenges.
He published a book ‘Réarmer la raison‘, on sale at Amazon, and an essay ‘Entre hystérie et négligence climatique‘ (both in French only).
He maintains a blog blog.mr-int.ch,, a site dedicated to the climate climate.mr-int.ch, as well as one on biological control in agriculture biologicals.mr-int.ch
E-mail: michel.de.rougemont@mr-int.ch

A gang of idiots, denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

He has no conflict of interest in relation with the subject of this paper.

A blatant lie. The conflict of interest lies in the funding by governments, which have an agenda.

I don't care of it's NASA, the Royal Society, or any other scientist or group of scientists. You cannot ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. You cannot ignore the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You cannot just make up a bunch of buzzwords and call it 'science'. You cannot just make up a bunch of numbers and call it 'data'.

 

[Into the Night]

Wow you really suck at this huh


The oil cos have massive money


Why would they lie about science ?


The government funds them no matter what their findings are shit ball on a stick

Religion is not science.
Governments fund 'research' that fits their agenda.

 

[Into the Night]

Believe science you fucking idiot

Try it

It makes for better decisions

The bucket of lies you soak your head in daily makes you act like a fucking loser

You deny science, specifically the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You also deny mathematics, specifically statistical math and probability math.

 

[Into the Night]

And the republicans just continue to lie about the science

Religion is not science. You are denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

I’m telling you these are Russian programs we fight here

Science isn't a Russian plot.

Disinformation dispensers

Science isn't disinformation.

Lies must be fought no matter where they emerge from

Science isn't lies.

Most people don’t even accept these are Russian programs

Science isn't a Russian plot.

I wish they would wake up and accept what we face in this nation

Science isn't a Russian plot.

Example: the Republican Party is working against joes ideas that the vast majority of Americans back

Joe has ideas????

Why?


Because they are working for Putin

Science isn't a Russian plot.

He blackmailed them into it

Science isn't a Russian plot.

They are the enemy within

Science isn't an enemy.

The Republican Party needs to die

Science isn't politics.

They are wholly compromised

Science isn't a 'compromise'.

You are denying science. The Church of Global Warming is not science. You are denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[Into the Night]

Eat shit public restroom shit smear


Once you believe science the path is clear to a real human


You are a fucking Russo bot hole so you don’t know


Your programmer is still out chopping wood to kept his shitty Siberian shack warm so he cant reprogram your lame ass

Science is not a belief, Russian plot, or a 'path'.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
You are denying science, specifically the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[Into the Night]

That doesn’t sound very science based


I guess your programmers 12 year old Down syndrome kid is playing on his computer while his dad chops wood for the Siberian shack

You deny science.

 

[Into the Night]

It's a sure bet. Non-scientific, pseudoscience wrapped in Republican political ideology is common to all of their issues.

The laws of physics is not pseudo science. You are also denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You cannot trap heat. You cannot accumulate heat. You cannot trap light. You cannot create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

 

[Into the Night]

NASA isn't a "high priest" or a religion.

NASA is a government agency. What they published here is a religion. It is called the Church of Global Warming.

 

[Into the Night]

My theory is that sentient Republicans are aware that humans are substantially responsible for the climate modifications we have seen this century,

Define 'climate modifications'. Buzzword fallacy.

but they are emotionally invested in denial, having promoted the denial agenda for decades.

You are describing yourself.

I actually believe some of them would rather have harm come to their grandchildren's welfare due to climate change,

Define 'climate change'. Buzzword fallacy.

than admit they were wrong on an obscure message board to people they will never meet.

Void argument fallacy. You cannot use buzzwords as the primary subject of a sentence.

 

[Into the Night]

Floyd did not die of an overdose

He certainly did.

 

[Into the Night]

Hello Cypress,



Tragically so.

One has to wonder why deniers apparently do not care in the least about their own descendants.

Typical fundamentalist belief. Anyone that doesn't believe in their religion is automatically Satan incarnate. Typical gloom and doom prediction.