Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

[Wild Cobra]

I have just fund this. It is a rather complex piece of work. I know I won't understand all of it, anyone else want to read it?

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf)

114 page PDF file.

[boutons_]

WC is right and 1000s of scientists and 1000s of reports are wrong.

:lol :lol :lol

Who pays you? BigOil? BigAuto?

What's your environment policy?
Do nothing,
wait with you head up ass,
and see what happens?

There are so many major, planetary problems to be worked and you're fucking around pissing into the wind, starting threads proving GW is BS and man is responsible for nothing.

.

[xrayzebra]

WC is right and 1000s of scientists and 1000s of reports are wrong.

:lol :lol :lol

Who pays you? BigOil? BigAuto?

What's your environment policy?
Do nothing,
wait with you head up ass,
and see what happens?

There are so many major, planetary problems to be worked and you're fucking around pissing into the wind, starting threads proving GW is BS and man is responsible for nothing.

.


Hey boutons, you know things are actually cooling off.
So who has who's head in the wrong place? And putting
water into the wind. You seemed to buy into every
dumb thing the communist and socialist say. For someone
of your intelligence you don't seem to demonstrate it
very much.

[ClingingMars]

no you don't understand! THERE'S AN UNSPOKEN LAW THAT SAYS GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT TO BE QUESTIONED! just like evolution. See: Expelled, the Movie.

- Mars

[Wild Cobra]

Bump

See if you understand the PDF file in post #1.

[Winehole23]

I have just fund this. It is a rather complex piece of work. I know I won't understand all of it, anyone else want to read it?

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf)

114 page PDF file.114 pp.? Lord son, please do your own homework.

[Wild Cobra]

114 pp.? Lord son, please do your own homework.
Anyone else WANT to READ it.

I put it out there for everyone. I suggest that you try to read the content. I understand most of it. I'm hoping some of you believers will too.

[Winehole23]

Ok. Fine.

[DarrinS]

Who cares about the laws of physics, there's a freakin CONSENSUS! Don't you understand, you ignorant flat-Earther?


A trace gas that makes up less than four one-hundredths of one percent of our atmosphere is going to kill us all.

[FreeMason]

WC is right and 1000s of scientists and 1000s of reports are wrong.

:lol :lol :lol

Who pays you? BigOil? BigAuto?


.

LOL, really boutons?

There are 1000s of scientists who know all of this is bullshit. The Goracle won't even debate anyone.

Your scientists are taking liberal funding to spew their bullshit so stfu.

You should know better than to just be another tool for the left-wing agenda.

[Shastafarian]

I don’t actually recommend reading this. But one gem that they propose is that there isn’t a thing called an average temperature. Of course there is. When attempting to derive such a temperature, Gerlich and Tscheuschner arrive at a value of 87.6 C. This is clearly wrong. If the Earth were that warm, humans wouldn’t exist. They then “explain” how climatologists get their value to explain the greenhouse effect as follows:


This fictitious [greenhouse] effect is based on the assumption that one should have an average effective temperature of -18 [degrees] C. One will get this if one weights the solar constant with a factor of 0.7 and inserts a quarter of the solar constant into the “radiative balance” equation. The factor of a quarter is introduced by “distributing” the incoming solar radiation seeing a cross section σEarth over the global surface ΩEarth.

[Added August 7, 2007: This post has been linked from a comment in a Scienceblogs.com post. For those who don't believe in the greenhouse effect, please explain how the average temperature on the moon is lower, in spite of the fact that it has a lower albedo.]

Actually, the value of -18 C falls right out of the equations, not the other way around. Assume that the sun radiates at a certain temperature such that it can reasonably be modeled by the blackbody curve for some effective temperature. This shouldn’t be that hard to do, even Gerlich and Tscheuschner do so in their paper. By the time this radiation reaches the Earth, it’s intensity has decreased according to the 1/R2 law. Again, this is exactly what Gerlich and Tscheuschner do. At the Earth, this value is roughly constant - 1367 W/m2. Gerlich and Tscheuschner do not use this number, they keep their equation in terms of the temperature of the sun, radius of the sun, and distance from the Earth to the sun. It doesn’t matter, the finals answers will end up the same.

Therefore, the total energy absorbed by the Earth is related to its albedo and its radius.

EA = (1-A)S0πR2

The term 1-A is the percentage of incoming solar radiation absorbed by the Earth; the albedo (A) is the percentage reflected. S0 is the solar constant. And πR2 is the cross-sectional area of the Earth that absorbs radiation. The dark side of the Earth cannot absorb radiation from the sun.

The total energy emitted by the Earth is related to its temperature and its radius.

EE = σT44πR2

Because the Earth emits radiation from its entire surface and not just the side facing the sun, the surface area of the Earth is used (4πR2) is used instead of the cross-sectional area. The σT4 term is the blackbody emission for an object at a given temperature.

Setting the two equations equal - assuming the energy absorbed equals the energy emitted - and simplifying, we see that

(1-A)S0 = 4σT4

So, for a given A and S0, we can find the effective temperature. In the case of the Earth, the albedo (A) is about 0.3, so 1-A is 0.7, which magically explains where that factor comes from that Gerlich and Tscheuschner couldn’t explain. The factor of 4 is just a consequence of the fact that the Earth can only absorb radiation on the side facing the sun, but emits in all directions. When the values are plugged in, we (and Gerlich and Tscheuschner) get a value of -18 C.

So, Gerlich and Tscheuschner couldn’t figure out where the magical values of 0.7 and 0.25 [1/4] came from, but they are just misleading their readers. They [should] know how to compute an effective temperature. And they [should] know that such a value exists, and is physically meaningful.

http://atmoz.org/blog/2007/07/10/falsification-of-the-atmospheric-co2-greenhouse-effects/

[Winehole23]

Who cares about the laws of physics, there's a freakin CONSENSUS! Don't you understand, you ignorant flat-Earther?It's the political will that underwrites and seeks to extend the consensus that will be decisive.

The political will behind your POV appears to be weak and fragmented. That does not mean it is wrong. For all I know it will be scientifically vindicated, and we'll have another round of mea culpas for getting smart so late in the game.

So early in the game?

Who knows? Roll them bones!

As usual, doing nothing appears not to be an option.

[DarrinS]

It's the political will that underwrites and seeks to extend the consensus that will be decisive.

The political will behind your POV appears to be weak and fragmented. That does not mean it is wrong. For all I know it will be scientifically vindicated, and we'll have another round of mea culpas for getting smart so late in the game.

So early in the game?

Who knows? Roll them bones!

As usual, doing nothing appears not to be an option.


You should read this --> http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf

[Winehole23]

Thanks for the link, DarrinS.

[RandomGuy]

I have just fund this. It is a rather complex piece of work. I know I won't understand all of it, anyone else want to read it?

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf)

114 page PDF file.

That is the closest thing to actual peer-reviewed science that I have seen you post.

Kudos.

Understand it yet?

[Winehole23]

You should read this --> http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdfQuestion. Just started reading it.

Is it appropriate for Mr. Jaworowski to recommend nuclear power in his introduction? Are policy recommendations normal in scientific literature?

[2centsworth]

Here's the abstract:


Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner



Abstract


The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier 1824, Tyndall 1861, and Arrhenius 1896, and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 ◦C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,

(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

[Winehole23]

Here's the abstract:I have no way to judge this, 2cents.

What's yer 2cents?

[2centsworth]

I have no way to judge this, 2cents.

What's yer 2cents?

I'm waiting for you genius.

I'll wait for you to copy and paste your opinion.:lmao

[Winehole23]

I'm waiting for you genius.

I'll wait for you to copy and paste your opinion.:lmaoI'll not do such, thanks. I'm a math cretin. So there. I've admitted it.

You dons of mathematics should lead the discussion.

I'm still waiting for 2cents, like a panhandler.

[Winehole23]

It says the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified. Is that all?

[2centsworth]

I'll not do such, thanks. I'm a math cretin. So there. I've admitted it.

You dons of mathematics should lead the discussion.

I'm still waiting for 2cents, like a panhandler.

honestly, I was trying to help the thread by posting the abstract from a long pdf file. That should tell people enough about whether they want to continue reading or not. I have chosen to maybe read it another day.:king


because I like and respect you I've explained myself. Otherwise, I would "pee" on you:p:

btw, the condescension is unbecoming of you.

[Winehole23]

btw, the condescension is unbecoming of you.Actually, it's just like me.

[2centsworth]

Actually, it's just like me.

much better.

[DarrinS]

Question. Just started reading it.

Is it appropriate for Mr. Jaworowski to recommend nuclear power in his introduction? Are policy recommendations normal in scientific literature?



If this concern is genuine, then why do we not see a storm of enthusiastic environmentalists and United Nations officials demanding to replace all fossil-fuel plants with nuclear plants, which have zero emission of greenhouse gases, are environmentally friendly, more economical, and safer for plant workers and much safer for the general population than other sources of energy?


Is this the policy recommendation you are referring to? Looks like he's posing a hypothetical question. Are any of his assertions about nuclear energy untrue?

[DarrinS]

I like these quotes from the paper I cited:



“We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.”




"We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and envireronmental policy.”




“A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

[Winehole23]

Is this the policy recommendation you are referring to? Yeah, that's it.


Looks like he's posing a hypothetical question. Are any of his assertions about nuclear energy untrue?I wouldn't know.

But I notice you didn't answer my question. Do you have a answer, or do you consider the question itself misguided?

[DarrinS]

Yeah, that's it.

I wouldn't know.

But I notice you didn't answer my question. Do you have a answer, or do you consider the question itself misguided?


I didn't answer your question because it was based on a false premise.

[Winehole23]

Gotcha. That's an answer. You refuse to answer mine.

Thanks, I guess.

[sook]

the right wing is composed of some of the most ignorant fucks in the nation, while they think whatever they say has substance the rest of us just laugh on the inside as they run around circles. No wonder your party is in shambles and the laughing stock of the nation.

This is coming from from an independent, both parties suck but i prefer the lesser of 2 evils.

Watching Wild Cobra shows how flawed their logic really is.

[Winehole23]

.Watching Wild Cobra shows how flawed their logic really is.I would say there's plenty of fail to go around, and no need to pick on such an easy target. There's no valor in it.






I should remember that sometimes.

[DarrinS]

the right wing is composed of some of the most ignorant fucks in the nation, while they think whatever they say has substance the rest of us just laugh on the inside as they run around circles. No wonder your party is in shambles and the laughing stock of the nation.

This is coming from from an independent, both parties suck but i prefer the lesser of 2 evils.

Watching Wild Cobra shows how flawed their logic really is.


WTF are you talking about? This issue has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal.

[Winehole23]

This topic is actually one of WC's stronger ones. He misuses his reason just like he does everywhere else, but his discourse on GW is at least reason-based, and is even mildly persuasive in spots.

[Winehole23]

Some of the stuff he suggests about solar activity and soot seem plausible to me.

[sook]

WTF are you talking about? This issue has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal.

What the hell are you talkign about? You and Wild Cobra are the only ones that have posted Global warming articles!

[Winehole23]

What the hell are you talkign about? You and Wild Cobra are the only ones that have posted Global warming articles!The search function is your friend.

This is not exactly right, and I don't know how much it's safe to assume about DarrinS's political orientation. Even if you are right about it, his views on science *may not* be ideologically derived.

FWIW sook, where DarrinS is concerned it seems there's an honest disagreement about the science.

Where WC is concerned, the disagreement strikes me as basically dishonest, but even WC occasionally turns up a topical nugget. Like the soot thing.

[Wild Cobra]

Watching Wild Cobra shows how flawed their logic really is.
You're a fucking idiot.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN!

[Wild Cobra]

Some of the stuff he suggests about solar activity and soot seem plausible to me.
Do a little fact finding and you will discover they are, without doubt, the primary reasons we have been warming.

[Wild Cobra]

Where WC is concerned, the disagreement strikes me as basically dishonest, but even WC occasionally turns up a topical nugget. Like the soot thing.
Can you explain why any point I bring up on the issue is dishonest?

That. I'd like to see!

[DarrinS]

Can you explain why any point I bring up on the issue is dishonest?

That. I'd like to see!


I think your best point was how the greenhouse effect of C02 is logarithmic. That pretty much ends the debate, IMO. You should post that graph again.

[Shastafarian]

WC, why don't you respond to what I posted on page 1?

[Wild Cobra]

WC, why don't you respond to what I posted on page 1?
Because I haven't read all the material involved yet for one. I don't know if your article is a correct assessment or not. Mainly because it came from you, and I didn't know how much of the words were yours until I went to the link.

[Winehole23]

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN!Admit it, WC: you do play one on ST.

[Wild Cobra]

I think your best point was how the greenhouse effect of C02 is logarithmic. That pretty much ends the debate, IMO. You should post that graph again.
I don't think these liberals understand math.

[Winehole23]

Can you explain why any point I bring up on the issue is dishonest?It the way you argue that's dishonest.

[Wild Cobra]

It the way you argue that's dishonest.
Example please.

[Shastafarian]

Because I haven't read all the material involved yet for one.Yet you can say with certainty that what this man says is correct?

I don't know if your article is a correct assessment or not.It seems to be

Mainly because it came from youThat's funny Mr. Robotfixer

and I didn't know how much of the words were yours until I went to the link.

None of them. So respond.

[Winehole23]

Do a little fact finding and you will discover they are, without doubt, the primary reasons we have been warming.You could have just said there's support for the hypotheses. Instead, you claim there's no doubt. Your hypotheses are not even theories yet, and you're claiming they're already proven.

That's an example of dishonesty.

[Wild Cobra]

Yet you can say with certainty that what this man says is correct?

Stop being dishonest. Where did I say that?

I rarely agree with everything someone says.



It seems to be

Yes, it sounds good. For all I know, the rebuttal is taking things out of context. I'm not convinced just because something sounds good. I'm sorry you are.



That's funny Mr. Robotfixer


None of them. So respond.

If I have time to absorb what's being said on the heat equations.

[Shastafarian]

Stop being dishonest. Where did I say that?

I rarely agree with everything someone says.Who's being dishonest now? I never said you agreed with everything he said. I said you though he was correct without having read all of the information. Am I wrong?



Yes, it sounds good. For all I know, the rebuttal is taking things out of context. I'm not convinced just because something sounds good. I'm sorry you are.:lol that's hilarious coming from you



If I have time to absorb what's being said on the heat equations.Only if it doesn't conflict with your robot repairs.

[Wild Cobra]

You could have just said there's support for the hypotheses. Instead, you claim there's no doubt. Your hypotheses are not even theories yet, and you're claiming they're already proven.

That's an example of dishonesty.
I'm sorry. With the sun, are you saying that if you increase the heat source, the earth doesn't heat up? This is basic thermodynamics. Conservation of mass and energy. The math is proven and simple compared to radiative feedback, which is only hypothetical in modeling. When you increase the received radiation by a given percentage, the earth slowly warms until a balance is achieved where the blackbody radiation that escapes from the earth equals the incoming radiation. Everything else being equal, there is a linear relationship between incoming radiation and the earths average temperature. Where the zero crossing occurs at is what I am uncertain of. I use 55 Kelvin, but it may be far lower or far higher. Indications from others work I have seen tell me it is lower, but I am not firm on any particular number.

At 55 K, we currently have about

0 Celsius = 273.15 Kelvin

15 C ( average global temperature) = 288.15 K

288.15 K - 55 K = 233.15 degrees of warming due to solar radiation and greenhouse gas feedbacks, which increase or decrease in a near linear form relative to incoming radiation.

There is solid paleoclimatology evidence that the sun has increased its output by (I forget) I think 0.2% to 0.3% since the 1700's. I forget the IPCC numbers, but they only then calculate the change in radiative forcing (feedback) and ignore the increased direct heat!

0.2% of 233 = 0.466 degree increase!

Undeniable if the 0.2% increase minimum and 55 K zero crossing is correct.

Are you saying this part of the IPCC data is wrong?

[Winehole23]

Undeniable if the 0.2% increase minimum and 55 K zero crossing is correct.

Are you saying this part of the IPCC data is wrong?Lemme see if I understand. You're saying the hypothesis is undeniable because it correlates with the IPCC figure for global mean temperature anomaly?

I thought the IPCC was a passel of fascistic libtards. Are you telling me they do science there?

You said you were unsure of the 55 K zero crossing, and you also seem to suggest the 0.2 figure may not be solid. How can you be so sure of your conclusion? Looks like you need to tie up some loose ends.

[Shastafarian]

Lemme see if I understand. You're saying the hypothesis is undeniable because it correlates with the IPCC figure for global mean temperature anomaly?

I thought the IPCC was a passel of fascistic libtards. Are you telling me they do science there?

You said you were unsure of the 55 K zero crossing, and you also seem to suggest the 0.2 figure may not be solid. How can you be so sure of your conclusion? Looks like you need to tie up some loose ends.

I'm also not sure if you can use average temperature in this situation. Radiation from the Sun isn't uniform from what I know. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Winehole23]

I'm also not sure if you can use average temperature in this situation. Radiation from the Sun isn't uniform from what I know. Maybe I'm wrong.Don't worry. WC will set you right.

[Shastafarian]

Don't worry. WC will set you right.

Maybe his automatons will help him out with some equations.

[Winehole23]

Maybe his automatons will help him out with some equations.It's not the math he needs help with. His problems are logical and rhetorical.

[Wild Cobra]

WC, why don't you respond to what I posted on page 1?
You were duped. Your pet article is propaganda. It does not address the same facts.

Oh well, that's all that lemmings like you require. Something that sounds good and fits your beliefs.



I don’t actually recommend reading this. But one gem that they propose is that there isn’t a thing called an average temperature. Of course there is. When attempting to derive such a temperature, Gerlich and Tscheuschner arrive at a value of 87.6 C. This is clearly wrong. If the Earth were that warm, humans wouldn’t exist. They then “explain” how climatologists get their value to explain the greenhouse effect as follows:

This fictitious [greenhouse] effect is based on the assumption that one should have an average effective temperature of -18 [degrees] C. One will get this if one weights the solar constant with a factor of 0.7 and inserts a quarter of the solar constant into the “radiative balance” equation. The factor of a quarter is introduced by “distributing” the incoming solar radiation seeing a cross section σEarth over the global surface ΩEarth.

They were calculating surface temperature. with no albedo. It is in this section:


3.7.3 The case of purely radiative balance

If only thermal radiation was possible for the heat transfer of a radiation-exposed body one would use Stefan-Boltzmann's law

Your rebuttal article is pure propaganda. It lies about the paper’s intent and meaning.

Now the embedded quote doesn’t even come from this paper, but one from about 12 years earlier. Translated from German. Assumptions then could be wrong, or incorrectly applied here. For that matter, did this author even reproduce it accurately? Source:


G. Gerlich, “Physical foundations of the greenhouse effect and fictitious greenhouse effects", Talk (In German), Herbstkongress der Europäischen Akademie fur Umweltfragen: Die Treibhaus-Kontroverse, Leipzig, 9. - 10. 11. 1995



[deleted fancy math and explaination that doesn’t apply]

So, for a given A and S0, we can find the effective temperature. In the case of the Earth, the albedo (A) is about 0.3, so 1-A is 0.7, which magically explains where that factor comes from that Gerlich and Tscheuschner couldn’t explain. The factor of 4 is just a consequence of the fact that the Earth can only absorb radiation on the side facing the sun, but emits in all directions. When the values are plugged in, we (and Gerlich and Tscheuschner) get a value of -18 C.

Lie… lie… lie…

The 0.7 represents 0.707, or the cosine of 45 degrees latitude.

Read the damn paper instead of blindly believing this pice of trash.



So, Gerlich and Tscheuschner couldn’t figure out where the magical values of 0.7 and 0.25 [1/4] came from, but they are just misleading their readers. They [should] know how to compute an effective temperature. And they [should] know that such a value exists, and is physically meaningful.
They weren’t trying to explain it. They used other numbers besides 0.7 as examples relative to other latitudes.

[Shastafarian]

You were duped. Your pet article is propaganda. It does not address the same facts.

Oh well, that's all that lemmings like you require. Something that sounds good and fits your beliefs.Again, coming from you that's hilarious. From the same person who lives by, "I don't have the actual facts to back me up, but I'm gonna say some stuff I think is right."



They were calculating surface temperature. with no albedo. It is in this section:"Therefore, the total energy absorbed by the Earth is related to its albedo and its radius."




Your rebuttal article is pure propaganda. It lies about the paper’s intent and meaning.Whatever you say Isaac Asimov


Now the embedded quote doesn’t even come from this paper, but one from about 12 years earlier. Translated from German. Assumptions then could be wrong, or incorrectly applied here. For that matter, did this author even reproduce it accurately? Source:Because the German language is an enigma on the level of Egyptian hieroglyphs of the 18th century.





Lie… lie… lie…

The 0.7 represents 0.707, or the cosine of 45 degrees latitude.

Read the damn paper instead of blindly believing this pice of trash.Fancy math? I thought robotisticians like you had to use complex equations. But no, let's just throw it away because a robot butler like you says it's "fancy math". I'm not blindly believing anything. I posted a rebuttal I found with a simple google search. You seem to be throwing things away for very stupid reasons (enigma of german grammar, etc).


They weren’t trying to explain it.Why not?


They used other numbers besides 0.7 as examples relative to other latitudes.Like what?

[Wild Cobra]

Lemme see if I understand. You're saying the hypothesis is undeniable because it correlates with the IPCC figure for global mean temperature anomaly?

No, I'm saying the same data yields different results. I do not dismiss most of the data presented by the IPCC, just their conclusions.



I thought the IPCC was a passel of fascistic libtards. Are you telling me they do science there?

No, they conveniently ignore some science fact to support their political agenda.



You said you were unsure of the 55 K zero crossing, and you also seem to suggest the 0.2 figure may not be solid. How can you be so sure of your conclusion? Looks like you need to tie up some loose ends.

All available evidence has something like 0.2% as the absolute minimum. Without looking it up, I don't clearly recall the number. The 55 K could be more or less. Still, it could not be much higher that that. 100 K would be a real stretch. Even 100 k at 0.2% (smallest realistic numbers) would end up yielding 0.376 degrees of warming change. Blows away CO2 as the leading cause for increase.

The numbers I have seen have solar radiation as about 95% of the heat and tidal forces as about 5%. That would mean that the zero crossing for solar calculations would be about 14 K, not 55 K. At 14 K, the solar influence range is now about 274 degrees rather than 233. 0.2% would be 5.48 ΔT rather than 4.66. At 0.3%, it would be 0.822 degrees of warming!

If I were to try to bend the results, I would use 0.3% and 14 K. I haven't found any solid numbers, so I use 55 K. It is arbitrary. I have said that before. It would be simply impossible for it to be much higher of a zero crossing. I am very confident that using 55 K, I am underestimating the solar change rather than overestimating.

[Wild Cobra]

Again, coming from you that's hilarious. From the same person who lives by, "I don't have the actual facts to back me up, but I'm gonna say some stuff I think is right."

Wrong. I operate withing a given range that is correct.



"Therefore, the total energy absorbed by the Earth is related to its albedo and its radius."

Did I say otherwise?

Again. That part of the original article is looking at surface temperature with no albedo. Your rebuttal mistakes it for tropospheric temperature. They are not the same.



Because the German language is an enigma on the level of Egyptian hieroglyphs of the 18th century.

Will you stop with this bullshit?

I did not say or imply that. I said it may have been improperly translated as one possibility.



Fancy math? I thought robotisticians like you had to use complex equations. But no, let's just throw it away because a robot butler like you says it's "fancy math". I'm not blindly believing anything. I posted a rebuttal I found with a simple google search. You seem to be throwing things away for very stupid reasons (enigma of german grammar, etc).

Why not?

Like what?

I understood all of what I read in it after having to refresh some of my skills. I dodn't blindly post an article like you did. I already understood most of it before posting it. It is blatantly obvious you don't under stand the contents.

Why did you post the rebuttal if you didn't believe it? Do you believe everything you google?

[Winehole23]

The numbers I have seen have solar radiation as about 95% of the heat and tidal forces as about 5%. That would mean that the zero crossing for solar calculations would be about 14 K, not 55 K. At 14 K, the solar influence range is now about 274 degrees rather than 233. 0.2% would be 5.48 ΔT rather than 4.66. At 0.3%, it would be 0.822 degrees of warming!

If I were to try to bend the results, I would use 0.3% and 14 K. I haven't found any solid numbers, so I use 55 K. It is arbitrary. I have said that before. It would be simply impossible for it to be much higher of a zero crossing. I am very confident that using 55 K, I am underestimating the solar change rather than overestimating.Are you sure you didn't use it because it gave you a more precise correlation with the IPCC figure?

[Shastafarian]

I understood all of what I read in it after having to refresh some of my skills. I dodn't blindly post an article like you did. I already understood most of it before posting it. It is blatantly obvious you don't under stand the contents.I haven't read a single page :lol


Why did you post the rebuttal if you didn't believe it? Do you believe everything you google?
Re-read this and see if the two sentences go together. Maybe you can get C3PO to help.

[Winehole23]

No, I'm saying the same data yields different results. Huh?

[Wild Cobra]

No, I'm saying the same data yields different results. Huh?
I meant the same data is used but they have different results in the IPCC than what the sciences dictate.

Poor proofreading on my part.

[Winehole23]

What about my question in #61? Are you ignoring it?

You gotta admit, your "arbitrary" value for zero crossing -- whatever that is -- did yield a strikingly convenient result.

[ClingingMars]

What the hell are you talkign about? You and Wild Cobra are the only ones that have posted Global warming articles!

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

idiot.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79916

you've got some reading to do.

[ClingingMars]

Admit it, WC: you do play one on ST.

conservative does not necessarily equal republican anymore. it's why Obama won.

[Winehole23]

conservative does not necessarily equal republican anymore.You're preaching to the choir.

[Wild Cobra]

Are you sure you didn't use it because it gave you a more precise correlation with the IPCC figure?
The 55 kelvin was a number I found for a different planetary body. Not only that, it fit nice for convenient calculations when I started with a -18 C assumed Earth temperature with no greenhouse effect. If you subtract the 55 degrees from -18, you get -73 C Using 0 C = 273 K, that leaves a convienient 200 degree range for solar heating of the Earth with no greenhouse effect.

Again, other information I find tells me the 55 K is a high number, that the Earth's tidal forces would generate less heat. I'm thginking it was 5%, but I'm uncertain. Again, 5% of 288 K would only be 14.4 K rather than 55 K. For 55 K to be right, the tidal forces would have to generate 19.1% of the Earths heat. That is obviously high. I purposely err on a number that does not inflate my case.

I wish I bookmarked the information I found before. I would like to show it to you. It was a credible site link. I think it was the Earth Sciences section at the NASA site.

[Wild Cobra]

I took another look for information of the Earths temperature if there was no solar radiation. I still haven't found it, but here is an absolutely great article on Tidal Energy:

Millennial Climate Variability: Is There a Tidal Connection? (http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0442/15/4/pdf/i1520-0442-15-4-370.pdf)

[Winehole23]

Thanks for the link, WC.

You sound sincere enough. I do believe that you believe what you say. It helps explain why you're so hotheaded and intolerant of anything contrary.

If you could manage somehow to disagree with people without being so disrespectful to them personally, they might be more considerate of your views.

My 2cents.

Ahuevo.

[spurster]

I am a little tired of the scientists are propagandists schick.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

[Wild Cobra]

Thanks for the link, WC.

You sound sincere enough. I do believe that you believe what you say. It helps explain why you're so hotheaded and intolerant of anything contrary.

If you could manage somehow to disagree with people without being so disrespectful to them personally, they might be more considerate of your views.

My 2cents.

Ahuevo.

If you notice, I tend not to get that way with you. before I've noticed you here, I have had some history with a few others. However, I do get pissed easily if I don't get my sunlight. What do they call it? Seasonal Distress Disorder?

I tell you, I'm a firm believer. Tanning beds really help keep me in check in the winter.

As for believing what I say. Most definitely. What science do the alarmists have other than justifying over the years CO2 correlations with temperature, using models designed just off that premise? I have repeatedly shown why those models are incorrect. So have several scientists.