Fox Repug Propaganda network: climate science

PM him a link to the thread and find out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Why is that?

---

Isn't Fuzzy always riding WC's ass about these sorts of things?

Speaking of, you'd better grab a refresher before your next post also:

http://www.energyboom.com/say-watt-e...gy-measurement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

Isn't Fuzzy always riding WC's ass about these sorts of things?

Speaking of, you'd better grab a refresher before your next post also:

http://www.energyboom.com/say-watt-e...gy-measurement

---

Thanks, but they done learned me a thang or two when I studied that dang 'ol mechanical engineering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Thanks, but they done learned me a thang or two when I studied that dang 'ol mechanical engineering.

---

You had me fooled. My apologies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

No reputable scientist would say anything like what you said above. No, the amount of energy or heat in the Earth's system is NOT more than the Sun puts out. Such foolishness.

---

It depends on how you look at it. Over the long term, the earth radiates the same amount of power it receives. Now power is energy x time. There is more accumulated energy than the sun provides because the atmosphere acts as a storage mechanism. The whole environment does for that matter. the state changes in moisture, chemical changes in plants, etc. Without the storage of heat energy in the atmosphere, the earth would be about -18C by the solar energy it receives and expels.

Back to the facts. I am using the same units of energy that the Climatologists use. You would know that if you actually studied the sciences as you claim.

Now if you're all hung up over one or more places I may have misstated something, what is it? Let me clarify. One reason I don't like debating you is you always go off on these attacks that have no meaning.

Then the BS like "LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL O"

It's obvious you have no intention of trying to understand opposing viewpoints to your own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

I'll respond to your longer post later WC, I'm time limited at the moment. Here I just wanted to say that a watt is a measurement of energy conversion (power)......not simply energy. It may seem like a nit-pick, but it's an important distinction and I'll tie this into my response later.

---

Again, I am using the same conventions that the Climate sciences use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

It seems to me that you want to keep using watts, energy and irradiance interchangeably.

---

Yes, but watts are watts. One joule/sec. With irradiance, the power gets distributed. The power that goes directly in the atmosphere is measured in watts/square meter. Same as the power that hits the surface, and the power that reflects off the surface, clouds, aerosols, etc. Now the heated surface that produces the infared as black body radiation is also measured in watts per square meter. In the end, it is radiant flux and heated gasses in the atmosphere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

There are subtle yet important differences between them.

---

Ok, in case I don't know, what are the subtle differences you speak of?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

PS - You'd better hope Fuzzy doesn't get ahold of this thread.

---

LOL...

He's a fool. He catches me on one mistake that I didn't realize that 1 farad capacitors have become as physically small as they are now, and he thinks he owns me. When I was learning electronics in the 70's, such a capacitor would be the size of a room, or maybe just a closet. Technological advances are a wonderful thing.

You're right. I have no interest in debating with someone who says that that the earth somehow has more energy than the sun has emitted and then proceeds to continue to claim such nonsense. Why would I?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

You're right. I have no interest in debating with someone who says that that the earth somehow has more energy than the sun has emitted and then proceeds to continue to claim such nonsense. Why would I?

---

I know. It's because you really don't understand climate science. I use the same conventions that climatologists use, and you say I'm wrong, and now you aren't willing to back it up.

If I need to back up that the earth's energy budget is not more than what it receives from the sun then a serious conversation is not worth my time. The LOLOLOLOLOL is far more fitting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WC

To ask, means you don't understand the greenhouse effect. Having more heat value than supplied by the sun is already an accepted part of these sciences.

---

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

If I need to back up that the earth's energy budget is not more than what it receives from the sun then a serious conversation is not worth my time. The LOLOLOLOLOL is far more fitting.

---

I never said the budget is more. The energy the earth received by the sun accumulates until an equal amount releases through the atmosphere, and equilibrium is found. With the greenhouse effect, as greenhouse gasses make it harder for this energy to escape, the energy must increase to higher levels to find equilibrium.

Why don't you understand such a simple concept of the climate sciences?

Quote:

---

To ask, means you don't understand the greenhouse effect. Having more heat value than supplied by the sun is already an accepted part of these sciences.

---

OK, then why don't you ask me to clarify instead of running with a slight misstatement?

See...

It's obvious you don't want to discuss the facts. You just want any reason to release your hatred of me.

The accumulated heat is more than the instantaneous.

Is that better?

So let me get this straight. You post nonsense that has nothing to do with climate theory and when I ask you to clarify what you meant and you respond telling me that "I don't know" I should then ask you to clarify your second iteration of your stupid and incorrect theory?

Oh thats pretty pretty good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

So let me get this straight. You post nonsense that has nothing to do with climate theory and when I ask you to clarify what you meant and you respond telling me that "I don't know" I should then ask you to clarify your second iteration of your stupid and incorrect theory?

Oh thats pretty pretty good.

---

So let me get this strait.

The sun is the source of energy to the feedback called the greenhouse effect, yet you don't believe that heat trapped by the greenhouse effect will change with the supplied heat?

Quote:

---

To ask, means you don't understand the greenhouse effect. Having more heat value than supplied by the sun is already an accepted part of these sciences.

---

Manny, give it a break. I explained it. Sorry if you don't understand. Ask a pertinent question and I will respond. Continue this nit picking of a poor choice of words, and I will ignore you.

My pertinent question is asking you to show your calculations and how they compare to actual temp records.

I like how Wild Cobra posts about 90% of his information form the heartland institute.

The greenhouse effect is only part of the story in global warming, Co2 also has a higher heat capacity than air. More heat capacity means longer and deeper temp shifts...ie harsher winters and harsher summers. This is contributes to why winter extends further past winter solstice and summer extends further past summer solstice

Most of these global warming deniers fail and basic thermodynamics.

I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.

Deck the halls with boughs of holly...

fa la...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololol
lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololol

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Thermodynamics is rolling over in his grave right now.

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

My pertinent question is asking you to show your calculations and how they compare to actual temp records.

---

The calculation I used was simply dividing all the original numbers on that graph by 1.0018.

Damn...

Can't you see that?

Stop wasting my time please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Borat Sagyidev

I like how Wild Cobra posts about 90% of his information form the heartland institute.

The greenhouse effect is only part of the story in global warming, Co2 also has a higher heat capacity than air. More heat capacity means longer and deeper temp shifts...ie harsher winters and harsher summers. This is contributes to why winter extends further past winter solstice and summer extends further past summer solstice

Most of these global warming deniers fail and basic thermodynamics.

---

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

Do you really mean that as something meaningful?

First off, CO2 is part of the air. If you mean Air - CO2, then how does less than a 0.04% CO2 concentration have any substantial impact to the rest of the air?

Maybe you should also look at the emissivity values of N2, O2, O3, CO2, H2O, CH4, and N2O.

Here is something of interest:

EMISIVITY OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND STEAM (WATER VAPOR)

EMISSIVITY, ABSORBENCY AND TOTAL EMITTANCE OF CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2).

I find this quote accurate and interesting:

Quote:

---

The IPCC team of experts has changed the radiative forcing so many times that the IPCC team have had to admit that the numbers are not real. The real values for the emittance or "radiative forcing" have been provided by the heat transfer science and thermodynamics.

Now the IPCC team has found that the radiative forcing changes erratically, induced by the climate changes. The last assertion from the IPCC team is an assumption without scientific support, and it contradicts the physics of heat transfer because the radiative forcing capability of any system depends of its physical characteristics, like specific heat, mass, enthalpy, etc. not in the state of climate. The climate is not driven by the radiative forcing of the elements in the atmosphere, but by the Sun and the oceans.

---

This is a newer study than anything we have seen from the IPCC:

HEAT CAPACITY, TIME CONSTANT, AND SENSITIVITY OF EARTH'S CLIMATE SYSTEM, The opening abstract:

Quote:

---

ABSTRACT. The equilibrium sensitivity of Earth's climate is determined as the quotient of the relaxation time constant of the system and the pertinent global heat capacity. The heat capacity of the global ocean, obtained from regression of ocean heat content vs. global mean surface temperature, GMST, is 14 ± 6 W yr m-2 K-1, equivalent to 110 m of ocean water; other sinks raise the effective planetary heat capacity to 17 ± 7 W yr m-2 K-1 (all uncertainties are 1-sigma estimates). The time constant pertinent to changes in GMST is determined from autocorrelation of that quantity over 1880-2004 to be 5 ± 1 yr. The resultant equilibrium climate sensitivity, 0.30 ± 0.14 K/(W m-2), corresponds to an equilibrium temperature increase for doubled CO2 of 1.1 ± 0.5 K. The short time constant implies that GMST is in near equilibrium with applied forcings and hence that net climate forcing over the twentieth century can be obtained from the observed temperature increase over this period, 0.57 ± 0.08 K, as 1.9 ± 0.9 W m-2. For this forcing considered the sum of radiative forcing by incremental greenhouse gases, 2.2 ± 0.3 W m-2, and other forcings, other forcing agents, mainly incremental tropospheric aerosols, are inferred to have exerted only a slight forcing over the twentieth century of -0.3 ± 1.0 W m-2.

---

Now....

I'll bet you can't tell me what this study does to the CO2 argument...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.

---

refusal to acceptable studies you yourself posted. Nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manny

refusal to acceptable studies you yourself posted. Nice.

---

I'm sorry. I forgot to give credit for that last quote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith Briffa

I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.

---