If so, you might want to note that even Denialist saints Roy Spencer and Judith Curry acknowledge the GHE. The former has in fact posed a rather difficult challenge to those like you attemting to disprove it. Contrarian climatologist saint Richard Lindzen calls those who deny the science on this “nutty”.

But since you have got one up on even these experts in the actual field in question (something EE is not), maybe you’d care to explain then why the Earth is not an iceball in space – as it once was known to have been? Our planet ought to be a heck of a lot cooler, minus the GHE – this is cutting edge nineteenth century science. Might want to look up the names Fourier and Tyndall – apparently they were either delusional or in on the conspiracy, in its very early stages.

According to your ridiculous logic
(spiced very nicely with
insulting rhetoric to everyone but yourself
and mysterious
stanza-
formatting),

it should be super-hot on the Moon –

because
The Moon

Enjoys the same irradiation as the Earth,
but
is not immersed “in frigid nitrogen/oxygen coolant”.
(as you choose to call
our precious Atmosphere
for some obscure reason.)

Yours,

Y.
(M.Sc. in environmental science,
Ph.D. in statistics)

It’s not complicated.
it’s first principles:
fundamentals of your faith.
Specifically reduced to basics,
for you who believed in it.

You are an activist .

You understand.
You saw what I said.
Your hands got real still.
You tried to think of something.
You are an Electronic Engineer.
You have spoken, read, extensively.
You made your most intelligent response.
You claimed that you had suddenly developed
sudden onset reading comprehension impediment.
————–
That doesn’t say too much about your faith in the science.
That doesn’t say too much about your faith in the basics.
That doesn’t say too much about your faith in the heater.
That doesn’t say too much about your faith in the “Yes!”
That doesn’t seem to be in your power to utter lest you
develop sudden reading comprehension impediment.
—————
“I developed a sudden reading impediment”
is your answer.

Go ahead Brian. Try to answer the questions.
I re-wrote them so an activist can understand.

(1) This is about whether you understand the effect of a cold thermally conductive bath,
on an object immersed in it, after being heated to full, stable temperature, in vacuum.

The earth is a sphere.
The earth is spinning.
The earth is in vacuum.
The earth is illuminated.
The earth is heated by it.

Can immersion of the sphere
in frigid nitrogen/oxygen coolant
make every single surface sensor report temp rise of average 91F/33C?

Do you Brian Angliss
believe possible,
immersion of an object
heated to full temperature in vacuum
into frigid coolant
causing sensors on it’s surface,
to report temperature rise averaging 90F/30C?

Your claim is sudden development
of rapid-onset reading impediment.
also known as “I got struck blind.”

I see it tried all the time.
We all do.

Crying out you were suddenly struck down by
rapid-onset reading impediment is one of
the most common Green House Gasser
bluff/fold/run techniques
from your Evangelists
Brian.

They have to.

(2) Second question’s also fundamental Magic Gas.

Do you believe possible, heating a sphere with light,
to then suspend reflective molecules between light & sphere
causing
sphere surface
energy sensors
to indicate more energy arriving with 20% less arriving
than when there was 20% more energy arriving?

Yes or No

The last question’s an extension of the second:

Do you believe after blocking 20% energy to sensors
you can add enough reflective H2O/CO2 to block 25%
causing surface heat sensors to report
more energy arriving when 75% does,
than before, when 80% was arriving?

Whenever you regain the capacity to process language Brian
Either “Oh Yes I do! believe in that!” Or “No I don’t believe in ANY that.”

Either way it’s obvious to everyone who had to claim
“being struck blind” as the reason you declined to answer.

=======
Brian Angliss
December 22, 2013
Bill, I’m an EE … I can’t understand what you’re saying.”

There has not been regular monitoring of deep ocean temperatures at the level of the surface (sea surface, air, ice). But there are some data that go back in time and more recently there has been an increase in the amount of data, but nothing is ever going to match a gazillion weather stations on the surface and satellite data for the atmosphere and sea surface temperature.

I’m about 290 miles south of International Falls. It is zero here now, but over the weekend we’ll see temps about 25 or more below zero.

BTW, how close are you to International Falls? Weather report says it set a new record something like minus 42deg F. You are probably catching some of the Arctic air as well.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

There is a graph that shows numerous models and actual temperatures that you may be thinking of, showing the actual temperatures within the error margin but for later years being on the low side. That is nothing remarkable. More recent research referred to here in the original post has caused those surface temperature readings to be adjusted … once previously missing data was added in … to be more in the middle.

The bigger issue, though, is that the surface temperatures as a whole are currently under-estimating global warming because the ocean has been eating up more heat than usual. We can expect that over the next year the ocean may stop eating extra heat and go to average, or perhaps even start releasing more heat, depending on what the ENSO does. Some predictions show it at 50-50 likely to go to neutral vs. El Nino, others suggest a somewhat higher likelihood of El Nino, but this is hard to predict and we have to wait and see.

BTW: HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Merry Christmas to you and yours. Hope Santa was good to the little ones.
JimB