Weather Banter - View Single Post

Eric Swanson · **U.S. Record Temperatures, 9 October 2007**

In article , says...

Swanson wrote:

says...

You ahve been trying to convince us that you know what you are talking
about, but we can planly see that yu have no clue.

And you are using that as a diversion from the issue I raised,
that of the physics that prevent the same frequency of day of year
record lows as highs.
All of the methods of thermal transfer, conduction, convection,
and radiation, proceed at a faster rate when there is greater differences
in temperatures.

So, what's your point? Didn't these processes operate back at the
beginning of the temperature record? In other words, wouldn't the
record events have been just as likely at the start? Why NOW would we
see more warm events than cold ones?
Answer for the clueless: THE EARTH'S WARMING UP!!

People are claiming that "everything" has been considered and
included in the calculations, but they don't know how that is possible.

And you make claims without data or calculations and expect to be
believed!

There cannot be as many low anomalies as high anomalies
where there is a heat source that increases transfer rates at a
certain low temperature, and where there has to be a lot of
energy added or subtracted to cause a phase change to or
from solid.
And not only is there the heat source of the ocean and
surface mass below a certain temperature, there is also a geothermal
source of energy below a certain temperature that causes a greater
rate of energy transfer when differences in temperature increase
in the right direction.

Geothermal heat has been measured and is much less than that from the
Sun. If you think otherwise, where's your data?

That isn't relevant, regardless of the quantity, when the
temperature of the air tries to move down past the temperature
of the soil, the rate of energy and possibly the direction of
transfer changes.
And it is even a greater factor when heat of fusion
is involved.

But we know that "geothermal" is very small because we can measure the
heat transfer thru the crust. Science ultimately is about measurements,
not bull****! Consider this fact. The temperature at the bottom of
the oceans, even near the equator, is almost at freezing. If there
were any significant quantity of geothermal, that would not be true,
would it?

At least in the interest of showing some honesty in science,
let me know if you understand that the high records outnumbering
the low record anomalies by a greater amount when there _IS_
PERFECT energy balance. And perfect energy balance means
no warming at all.

Since I have no idea what you mean by "perfect energy balance",

Do you mean you lack the ability to think in terms of hypothetical?

If you want a hypothetical discussion, present a hypothesis that's
backed by data. No bull****!

I can
only point out that the entire message of AGW is that we are changing
the average temperature because we are changing the way energy flows
thru the atmosphere.

AGW is a "message"? WOW! And who is the Messiah?

Nobody. The message is being delivered by Mother Nature.

As for honesty in science, what science degree do you hold?

Does an eighth grade diploma count?

Obviously not. I didn't learn about heat transfer until well into
my undergraduate engineering education. I learned some more as a grad
student. I didn't really get a feel for things until I worked on a
heat transfer problem.

While you
are at it, honesty requires that you reveal your true name, Fool.

You haven't been paying attention, ask Nudds.

I wasn't addressing Nudds. He's been a pain like you for years.

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------