LOL...
Show the math...
Where is the math from the AGW crowd?
Have any that is preficed with "we assume this" or "our best assessment?"
You agree that H2O is temperature dependent, yet you ignore any discussion that it is valid for changes from the ice age to now, and from the maunder minima to now?
How hypocritical.
LOL...
Show the math...
Where is the math from the AGW crowd?
Have any that is preficed with "we assume this" or "our best assessment?"
Um, in every peer reviewed paper published on the subject? The ones you always say are wrong even though I doubt you know enough math to even understand the equations. If you don't even know how they come to the conclusions why are you saying they are wrong? Question is rhetorical as I already know the answer.
I don't remember the specific words, but have you ever noticed how they qualify their statement? They almost always say something like "to arrive at our conclusions, we assumed a set of xxx for yyy," etc.
Yes, my paraphrasing isn't completely accurate, but I'm trying to make a point.
Have anything that has facts, without assumptions?
Don't you ever notice the written in uncertainties?
So, tell me whats wrong with these analysis, WC.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliograph...regory0201.pdf
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...s/ngeo578.html
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/...ansen_etal.pdf
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Pu...dillo_2008.pdf
Thats a TINY fraction of the papers out there on CO2 climate sensitivity and ALL have the math within them.
Show why those are wrong and you are right. Should be easy for someone as smart as you, right?
If they are wrong then show it. Show what is wrong and why. Enough of your bull parts changer babble and actually show it.
I have said something before, but it went unchallenged, so I didn't elaborate.
I just scanned the first page of your first link. Right away:
OK, we have agreement that the model shows what it was designed to show.It is defined as
the steady-state change in global-average surface temperature
due to a doubling of the carbon dioxide concentration,
and is estimated to lie between 1.5 and 4.5
K (Cubasch et al. 2001), largely on the basis of experiments
with general circulation models (GCMs). This
wide range was informally obtained from the model
results, and does not correspond to any particular probability
limits.
I'm not going to read all those four links. I'll jump to the second one and see if it says something interesting.
Where's your math? Where do you show that their math is incorrect?
Did i read this right in the third:
Are they claiming a 2% increase in solar output?A global climate forcing, measured in W/m2 averaged
over the planet, is an imposed perturbation of the planet’s
energy balance. Increase of solar irradiance (So) by 2% and
doubling of atmospheric CO2 are each forcings of about 4
W/m2 [12].
That would be disastrous!
0% for water, and you want me to thing this has merit?The resulting
GHG forcing between the LGM and late Holocene is 3
W/m2, apportioned as 75% CO2, 14% CH4 and 11% N2O.
Show your math or show why theirs is wrong.
Also, they are not saying that H20 has zero effect dumb ass. A forcing and a feedback are two different things. You would know that if you actually understood the science the way you like to claim so often.
This is basic. You know, like ice sheets.
Also, if you're going to talk about increases in solar output being disastrous you might want to actually READ the article and take a look at the time frame then understand more about stellar cycles. You understand the science right? You don't even understand the papers you're reading.
LOL...
In the fourth one:
Not disputed...Without any
feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would
result in 1°C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed.14
Bull .
Note 14... IPCC... LOL...
The bottom line it that it is all feedback. Feedback from the sun.
Call it what you must to say H2O plays no roll. It's not going to fool me.
Once again, If you want to call CO2 something that the forcing comes from, then don't forget the sun's forcing changes, and the indirect effect it has on GHG forcing.
I didn't read the whole thing. Are they speaking of the next... I think 26,000 years... when the eccentricity of the earth is at it's minimum?
You are a ing moron.
PS Show the ing math!
PPS No one in that article was saying H20 played no role (or roll).
PPPS You're just as bad at reading as your are at understanding science
PPPPS You're a moron.
Yeah, you didn't read the ing le either. SMH.
WC,
You're a waste of oxygen. You will not get a response from me in any form again until you show your math. The time I even spend ridiculing you're idiocy has become a waste. How many times can I laugh at you being a complete moron? Apparently I've reached that limit which is saying something since I'm fairly easily amused.
I'm cutting you off until you learn to use those 3 cells for something beyond changing fuses.
I did a quick search for solar. Didn't see 2% elsewhere. I'm going to assume it's a typo, and should be 0.2%. Not 2%.
2% would be really bad.
I'm was only guessing at to why they would make the outrageous 2% claim.
Now as I think about it, I may have misunderstood their intent. It appears they are saying a 2% increase in solar energy is the same forcing as doubling CO2. And... since you separate forcing and feedback the way you like to compartmentalize things, it isn't so obvious to you, that a 2% solar change would be a disaster. Doubling of CO2 isn't the same thing.
Doubling of CO2 will increase percentage of upward IR that the CO2 traps, and returns to the ground, making a larger forcing than provided by the sun itself. this is estimated at around 4 watts/sq meter by some. I would argue this is a very high estimate, but I'll go with it for this point.
However...
The sun is the root energy of all these effects. Increase the output by 2%, and most the energy budget numbers are increased by 2% as well. If we take this latest diagram, imaging increasing all the numbers by 2%. The total 333 in back radiation becomes 339.66. A 6.66 watt/sq meter increase of radiative forcing of greenhouse gasses. I'm sorry, but doubling of CO2 does not increase radiative forcing by that much. There is also the 1.56 watts of direct forcing change in the atmosphere, for a total forcing increase of 8.22 watts. Maybe not disastrous, but I would call getting that much more forcing would become a concern. This isn't including your extra water vapor feedback yet either. I don't know how close to linear the thermals and evaporation would be, so I didn't include them. If they are linear, it would be another 1.94 watts yet.
LOL...
Having a tantrum I see...
It's funny how you focus on one thing to use as an excuse, instead admitting defeat.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-15-2012 at 01:00 AM.
The key when dealing with WC is to not give him rein. He is dumb and if you leave him to his own devices he is only going to repeat the exact same . How many times has he repeated the same energy flux figure and the picture now?
If you are going to do that you are just going to end up frustrated. Its the old cliche about arguing with an idiot.
Now keep in mind he has admitted that he has a learning disability. I am guessing that it is autism or just straight up MR. Now one way completely understandable approach is to not go this route because making fun of re s is not exactly kind and their is something to taking the high road. It also will keep wine from whining at you. He is so cavalier as regards to WC.
Anyway, if you are going to go down the other route you have to dictate the conversation. Its not hard to find the logical inconsistencies and when you find them you have to be relentless. He is going to try and evade and switch the subject because even he knows he doesn't know wtf he is talking about.
Don't ask him to explain. Tell him he hasn't and then point out he doesn't get to insert supposition for fact. thats half of his Dr EZ-Bake analysis. Don't give him that rope.
For example, here he is babbling about linear functions and feedbacks while throwing out figures. Its dumb. Point out specifically how he doesn't understand and how its because he does not have the capacity to understand. He didn't even bring up specific heat for example/
Another example is the spectral absorption chart. WC likes to dumb things down and when he does you cannot just let it pass. In this case he tries to make claims on the ocean based on a fresh water single state absorption chart. With that same brain he talked about how it was all going to be limited to the top and evaporate. that particular take was mindnumbingly stupid.
the list goes on. as he continues and meanders through his stupidity just catalog it. Don't argue with him just catalog it, post it and laugh. You are not going to reason with stupid.
So, you aren't going to show your math.
Specifically which math for what claim?
This gets confusing.
The math doesn't matter when you can show theirs is wrong.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions