‘Global Warming’ Is Rubbish Says Top Professor

And I note your ignorance of the subject of thermodynamics. Thermo = heat. Dynammics = movement. I guess you are trying to say heat does not move in the atmosphere?

So you rely on data that you don't even understand, but we should believe you instead of a PHD in heat transfer? Loverly.

BTW, it only took me about 3 minutes to figure out that 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules would heat the 2,900,000,000,000,000,000,000 pounds of water in the ocean 0.07°F. I really think they should check their data a little closer before they (and you) publish it. It makes for an dramatic looking chart, but it is meaningless.

 

This is why I ignore him. He has this insane need to be right about something even if it is only about something tangentially related to the subject at hand. I guess that's what being above the percentile does for you.

 

View attachment 2491

 

This coming from a student loan clerk trying to tell a chemical engineer that he's wrong about thermodynamics. LOL.

 

Not just a chemical engineer... One who is above the 100 percentile in his class. You simply have to respect a guy with that kind of math knowledge. Right?

Keep being his puppet though. You look just as foolish as he does.

 

HMMM. I would say I have " this insane need to" (if insane is the word you must use) to keep LIES from going out. Hence, all of the attention you get.

 

And a simple person who realizes that $1912B is larger than $1754B unlike Mr. RB!

 

YOU have the nerve to talk about someone else's math skills?

 

Oh the nerve!
View attachment 2492

 

You smoking pearls now?

 

More deflection, along with an unwarranted assertion regarding my level of knowledge. You have no basis for this, and it doesn't have any relevance to your refusal to address the fact that chemical thermodynamics is actually a different field than atmospheric thermodynamics. Whatever it takes to reinforce your precious ego.

Unless you're some sort of mind reader, your continued assertions regarding what I'm ignorant of don't do you any credit. Just as with Woodcock, your degree in chemical engineering doesn't give you any credibility when you tackle the topic of climate science. But carry on with your blathering; it makes for some entertaining reading.

 

double, I guess.

 

Your words;

The Sun radiates heat to Earth while the Earth radiates heat into space. That is a simple thermodynamics equation with a lot of complications to it. You have yet to explain how "global warming" (aka climate change) is not 100% thermodynamics. But then I have studied it and know what it is while you obviously have done neither. So I would not believe you anyway.

 

The story so far: Woodcock, a professor whose field of expertise is definitely not climate science shoots off his mouth about the climate of the Earth. What he says happens to be congenial to climate science deniers, so unsurprisingly they tout him as supporting their position, ignoring his lack of qualification in the field.

I note this salient fact, as well as pointing out one of his main points is baloney.

Despite all the back and forth, nobody has been able to show why we should listen to what a chemical engineer has to say about the climate of the Earth, especially when he's contradicted by the overwhelming majority of those who specialize in understanding the Earth's climate. He's published papers, sure, but not one about climate science, in his entire career.

I've provided evidence that the "flat temperature" line so favored by the denialists is a falsehood, and nobody has addressed that evidence, exept for a completely incorrect gripe about the time scale of the evidence, and a quibble based on an apparently deliberate misreading of one piece of that evidence.

In this thread, rlm's cents says he has a degree in chemical engineering, and has studied thermodynamics. If he's as knowledgeable as he says he is, then there is no question that he knows that chemical thermodynamics and atmospheric thermodynamics are two different fields. Just because somebody has expertise in one does not in any way mean that they have expertise in the other. Therefore, he's being dishonest when he refuses to acknowledge this fact. Either he's lying about his level of education, or he's lying about the distinction between the two fields of study.

 

As spoken by the un-expert;

And maybe this is why we are so negative on you forecasts:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/30/botched-environmental-forecasts/

Who knows. Maybe that 0.07°F was accurate!