Polar ice advancing, global warming is dead

In the beginning, water temperatures were measured every 4 hours (obviously going with the watch system) That was reduced in the early 20th century to six hours. (When we were acting as a weather ship for three days, the official data had to be done every six hours .... but the normal navy procedure still was four hours.)

Sounds like an attempt to misguide/mislead people in five languages......

Now you are just scaring me with your lack of science . Who proved that ? Oh wait, you ASSUMED it didnt you .

I imagine your wrong . Who's imagination will win ?

acquired knowledge and wide experience, versus cocksure unknowledgable snarkiness, no contest.
and normally i don't comment on spelling or grammar errors, but, geez. twice in one line "your", "who's"?

Typoical GW enthusiast . Nothing about facts . You can join in any time you like . Do you mean knowledgeable like you with ocean warming ?
Thank you for taking the time to make me an exception . I will probably continue to make those mistakes so get used to it or prepare to wear out certain keys . It would have had more impact if you had of spelled everything correctly yourself, but such is typical of the GW bullies .

No. I didn't assume anything. It's called statistics.

But let's examine your claim.
You claim that min/max can't be used to show a trend. Let's look at your assumptions.

Data using the average of the minimum and maximum daily temperature is showing a trend upward.
That means one of 3 things is happening.

Both the minimum and maximum are increasing over time.
The minimum is increasing while the maximum is staying the same
The maximum is increasing while the minimum is staying the same.

In all 3 of those instances we would be seeing an increase in the amount of heat during the day.

But wait. You are arguing that the increase in heat is illusory and there is some magical way that heat works differently the rest of the day today than it did 100 years ago. We'll ignore the fact that there is no evidence to support your assumption and assume you are correct.

In order for the max/min average to show an increase but there is no increase in daily temperature then there clearly has to be a change in how our days warm and cool. Let's look at the ways that can happen. The sun's output can change. The amount of sunlight reaching the surface has changed by some process such as increased/reduced cloud. The way the heat is radiated has changed in the last 100 years.

We have to eliminate the radiation theory because you are already discounting that one. CO2 increases temperature by decreasing the rate of radiation.
The sun's output has not been shown to have increased.
That leaves us with some process that is now somehow increasing/decreasing the amount of sunlight at certain parts of the day to increase the average since we are only using the maximum and minimum.

What process could be blocking the sunlight or increasing it? We know there isn't a giant magnifying glass flying around the earth increasing the sunlight. That means it has to be something in the atmosphere doing what you are claiming. It can be a chemical such as CO2 or it can be what we would call weather.

That leads us to the conclusion that either there is a chemical compound changing the way heat is trapped in the earth that somehow only works during part of the day. Not likely, but if you know of some such chemical compound please let us know. The other option is that what we know as weather is changing over time. When weather changes over time it is called climate change.

So your argument leads us to the conclusion that climate change must be occurring for your argument that the average if minimum and maximum temperature can't show the trend correctly.

ionus says:

Take a look at your post, to which I was responding. Zero facts in your post, and a typical-on-you-part misconception of what "imagine" means in the context of FM's post. It means essentially, "I think", whereas you are using it in your part of the reply as some sort of airy-fairy-fact-freeness. on your part.

And, yeah, ocean warming. I was right. You are wrong. Increasing ocean acidification IS going on at the same time as there is warming. No contradiction. Henry's Law, which you seem to have been ignorant of before you cut and pasted that bit, which in fact supports what the science says, as do I. As you don't.

"At a constant temperature, the amount of a given gas that dissolves in a given type and volume of liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid."
Do you see anything about changing temps, you know, like in GW ?
If you are attempting to dazzle the plebs with science, you are doing a poor job . Go back and read my post...dont put your hand in front of your eyes so you wont have your religious belief in GW affected . READ IT !


http://able2know.org/topic/280182-7#post-5970175

That was your most coherent post yet, except for the last line . Thats a little confusing . Too many "your argument"s .

Your entire refutation is based on one assumption: that the temperature of the world is being measured accurately .

Now before anyone jumps to the defense of precious thermometers, we have far more thermometers measuring where people live and very few where people don't live . How many thermometers are there in mainland USA compared to the Arctic and Antarctic ? What was happening over the oceans, in the deserts....So your min and max are not trends, they are selected data, selected by default . You are desperate to prove GW and are using faulty data .

If someone had of sat down and worked out the different climates around the world and decided where to place measuring stations so as to accurately record temps, then we would have accurate data . We have smog making it cooler over heat sources that we call cities . There are too few measurements taken anywhere else to be certain of any trending .
There are projects underway which will correct that, but they are in the very early stages and more data is required .

That will always be the case. But plenty of data is available to support the idea that CO2 levels have an impact on climate.

So your assumption is that where we aren't taking measurements, the earth is cooling. An interesting argument but where are your facts? Does the atmosphere no longer move from one area to another in the same way as the past? Your argument is based solely on an assumption that there is no change because there is a change.

Of course, you completely ignore the rest of the data that has nothing to do with temperature take by thermometers and has been mentioned several times here.
The dates of ice out on lakes.
The migration patterns of animals and birds
The movement of species to new ranges
The loss of glaciers.
The acidification of the oceans

You are doing nothing more than the standard argument of a denialist or conspiracy theorist. You simply ignore many facts while you pick out a few you can claim are wrong while not really having any facts of your own.

Do you even understand what youve posted ??
It is saying that in using Henry's law coefficient of CO2 , the resultant k value IS temperature dependent.

he he.

"The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all." (Pope Francis’s encyclical "Care for our Common Home")

A slippery slope? Could "land" then be substituted for "climate," and then the EU would have to take in refugees from all developing nations. No?

A new term might be needed: "Climate sovereignty." Or at least, a legal definition of "international sky space," as opposed to a nation's "sovereign sky space."

I can't remember or see that I use the noun "land" in my post you responded at nor do I have an idea what you mean.

Could you please explain that? (With "international sky space" and "sovereign sky space" you mean ... sovereignty over airspace?)

Of course you completely ignore that topic being dealt with before .

Ice that was laid down during a colder period so it must be warmer now due to humans .... THAT ice ?
Migration patterns that are assumed to be due to warming but there is no proof..
The loss of Glaciers ...you just dont get it or are lying to yourself to feel like the saviour of the earth .
The acidification of the oceans which is the current topic as well .

You are doing nothing more than the standard argument of an enthusiast or researcher demanding money . You simply ignore many facts while you pick out a few you can claim are wrong while not really having any facts of your own .

All the deserts of the world, the oceans, the Arctic and Antarctic, where are your data for them ? You have only measured where people were, and that is not scientific .

FM you are embarrassing yourself AGAIN . That is my argument . You are losing your ability to comprehend . he he .

Lovely words . Unless you think the Pope is steered by God, then it is more GW bullshit from false science .

And that over 180 pages ...