Talk-Polywell.org

If x heat goes in, and y heat comes out, and x is greater than y, then the object of study gets hotter.

The satellite data says x is greater than y. The object of study is the Earth.

Discuss.

would help if you provided a link to the sat data, no?

It's on GISS. It's publicly available. I prefer you look it up; it's easy enough that I think it's more convincing if you see how easy it is to look up. If you insist I'll find links, but anybody who knows that GISS is a division of NASA knows what the web address is. ETA: for the clueless giss.nasa.gov is probably a great starting place.

Remember Hansen runs GISS.

I often wonder if the deniers understand what GISS is and does. They don't appear to.

The climate cranks claim that because the satellites say the Earth "appears cooler" it is. If you want to play games with them go ahead. I am not interested in arguing about how remote measurements work with people who have never seen or used remote measurements. Sorry, this is a huge waste of time.

If the incoming sunlight stays the same and the outgoing heat goes down, I think anyone who thinks it's not going to get warmer is a congenital idiot who doesn't believe in blankets.

Keep in mind as well that AR5 documents this data early and often. But the deniers never mention it.

Hate to say it but you better read AR5.

Tell me whether you think a person would be brighter or darker in infrared immediately after putting on a blanket.

I been putting up with this crap because of the government shutdown. Now I can talk about GISS GCM FORTRAN code.

Stubby wrote:would help if you provided a link to the sat data, no?

Try this: http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/09 ... ture-rise/

I mean, if you don't know anything about satellite optics.

I find that providing links is counterproductive with deniers; they just make up stories. Seriously, I've seen them claim energy conservation is flawed! One might as well deny gravity. So if I treat them like they're denying gravity, understand that they are doing the equivalent. For example just today MSimon denied peer review. This is insanity. He might as well deny refrigeration or the Moon landings.

As far as the satellite data they claim the Earth is getting cooler because the stratosphere temperatures are lower. As I've already pointed out many many times this is stupid beyond belief; they're pretending temperature is conserved. Anyone with any real knowledge of physics is already rolling on the ground having the laugh of the year.

Here, try this too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_ ... asurements

This is pretty straightforward stuff. I'll take you by your cute little hand and lead you through Wikipedia and NOAA and GISS on this, if you really need it, but I'm gonna lose a lotta respect for you on the way.

But I want to be really clear here: these measurements deep in the atmosphere are late hot stuff; the original measurements, however, of the whole hemisphere using a wide-angle camera, are definitive. The deep measurements add up to them. And from many such wide-angle images a composite average outflow of energy from the Earth can be computed, with very little residual error.

Now, the point is, weather satellites take such pictures every hour or even more often and have been for decades. And those pictures are of stable wide areas around the world.

And weather satellites are very exact in terms of their characteristics; they use CCDs. And they take pictures day and night.

So there is actually a really huge dataset from the satellites that the climate cranks never want to discuss or admit exists, but that the meteorologists among them are well aware of and are ignoring in the hope no one will look behind the curtain.

Detailed evidence:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empiric ... effect.htm

This shows the difference in heat output measured by satellite between 1970 and 1996 in Figure 2. This is the crudest, most direct, most accurate method of determining heat output; just put an imaging device behind a really short (i.e. wide-angle) lens. They could do that just fine in 1970. (Wave numbers in per-cm convert directly to wavelength in µm and vice versa, divide ten thousand by the wavenumber).

But we don't even really need to know differences by spectral band; total heat output tells us all we absolutely need to know, and lo and behold we have data on it since 1970.

So now all we need is solar output per unit area at 93 million miles (Earth's orbital distance) over the same period. That will be my next source. It's much easier; we've been keeping pretty good track of the Sun for 23 11-year solar cycles. I'll let you work that out while I search out the best article on satellite and surface total solar input data.

Here's a pretty good history of solar radiometry on satellites: http://www.cormusa.org/uploads/Grum_Lec ... Ketola.pdf

It's worth noting that they needed to know the solar irradiation outside the atmosphere before they could design space suits. That was in like the early 1960s and stuff. That covers the early years. One of the very first objects of study by satellites was the Sun.

It's safe to say that the solar output has been available from satellites since there were satellites for it to be available from. Does anyone care to dispute this? I'll be happy to find the first satellite radiometer for you. The answer will be somewhere in the 1960s. I won't be astonished if there was one on Sputnik, even.

For that matter they were putting them in balloons for a long time before that. Seriously this is one of those things that's just going to occur to people who want-- or like NASA need-- to know about the Sun. It's practically the first thing, in fact.

This is even more fun than arguing drug policy with MSimon, at least he succeeded in moving my opinions broadly and laterally, softening my stand on legalization.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-ga ... 34971.html

I'm not going to answer a link to an unknown article of unknown relevance.

Make a point and quote the part of the article that proves it.

Welcome to the Internets n0oB.

choff wrote:This is even more fun than arguing drug policy with MSimon, at least he succeeded in moving my opinions broadly and laterally, softening my stand on legalization.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-ga ... 34971.html

Models aren't wrong. Nodels are NEVER wrong.

Reality is in error, and NASA is lying. /schneibs

If you don't ever answer I can't ever call you wrong.

But I can call you a coward.