I didn't realize that all scientists were involved in the same scheme to hide the same data, skirt the same FOIA laws, and alter the peer review process. I guess that's easy to do when you lump all scientists together.
ElNoNo, I think you're pretty much describing exactly what I was trying to say. But for some things, we'll never have 100% certainty, for instance, the rise of life on this planet. Even if recreated the conditions that we believed to be primal earth, and created life ourselves, it doesn't 100% mean that's how WE were created. The same goes with large scale arenas like you talk about, where there are so many factors that it's nigh impossible to say X action caused Y event. That's what I was getting at about science not always having/needing 100% certainty.
I didn't realize that all scientists were involved in the same scheme to hide the same data, skirt the same FOIA laws, and alter the peer review process. I guess that's easy to do when you lump all scientists together.
Here are some references:
Hansen's formula that I showed in graphics for is from the IPCC TAR. The link is at the bottom of the graphic. It is on page 358, in Chapter 6.
Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budge
On page 203, you will find the clear skies effect of H2O at 60%, CO2 at 26%, O3 at 8%, and CH4 + N2O at 6%. This material has other useful information.
Even in RealClimate, they cite the 9% to 26%.figure.
Wiki: Greenhouse effect uses the 9% to 26% numbers:
* water vapor, 36–70%
* carbon dioxide, 9–26%
* methane, 4–9%
* ozone, 3–7%
Wiki actually has a decent amount of basic information on the topic, but far from complete. The 14 to 15 and 32 to 33 degree rage for average temperature and warming effect is universally accepted. Notice, I used the higher 15/33 degree to favor the AGW contention.
The calculations are Hansen's formula placed into Excel. The constant "α" value changed to suit the results.
These numbers are found in various literature's, I don't understand why you ask where they come from. If you know the topic as you claim, you have seen them repeatedly.
Liar.
You just don't have the intelligence to show your contention that I'm wrong.
Liar. You are just incapable of expressing your viewpoint with any valid data.
JSTOR searches are difficult at best to find a specific topic. A simple search often reveals 15,000+ results. I got a search down to 120 results. Think I'm going to take the time to go through 120 do ents?
Which are you. An ignorant idiot, or a devilish asshole?
If you know what you say to be true, you should be able to find it. After-all, it's me dealing in pseudo science, and not you, right?
I've looked at the do ents many times today. Very easy to find. If you can't find them then I find it laughable especially considering who the source of the discontent over this is.
Please don't tell me you're that dumb. If so why am I wasting my time on you?
We see an added level of CO2 each year because the total sources are more than the total sinks.
Is that simple enough?
Then if you were just there, show me a link.
I guess you haven't found anything to disprove my points, else you would be fast to link it.
Manny...
You do have a history function on your browser don't you?
I guess the Dog is running away with his tail tucked...
That is the first step towards proving the hypothesis concerning soot.
One then would have to take some measurements of soot and then show a correlating increase.
That is the first step, in supporting the hypothesis.
Do you have that data then?
Also, concerning soot as opposed to CO2 and other gases:
If CO2 levels continue to climb, while soot does not, we would expect, if CO2 were a larger driver than soot, to see continuing steady increases in ice melts.
The heating effects of the soot would, I imagine, disappear once the ice melts, and the soot is absorbed by the oceans.
nes pa?
This is TRUE science
“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.”
“I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.”
“I do find the dismissal of the Medieval Warm Period as a meaningful global event to be grossly premature and probably wrong.”
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"
"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
"so it could be correct, but could be very wrong as well.
by the way, von storch doesn't concur with osborn/briffa on the idea that
higher past variability would mean there'd likley be high future
variability as well (bigger response to ghg forcing).
he simply says it's time to toss hockeystick and start again, doesn't take
it further than that."
No he makes a claim and then when you want him to qualify it he tells you to back up his claim. Its a joke really.
NASA has a whole series of articles on the topic. So do other scientific outlets.
Try this; Google: black carbon on ice
Here's one of interest:
Black carbon aerosols and the third polar ice cap
Except that CO2 gets very little long wave radiative forcing from cold ice, to remit as heat. Black carbon differs in that it directly absorbs heat from the sun rather than reflecting it, and is a nearly perfect black body radiator vs. ice, a very poor black body radiator. Clean ice and high CO2 isn't a match for carbon covered ice and low CO2. The amount of soot doesn't even need to be readily visible.
Even in the dark, the added carbon, as a black-body radiator, sends far more heat upward into the greenhouse effect as clean ice does.
Ever study how black body radiators work? The emissivity of ice and black carbon are dramatically different.
Once again you are supposed to support partschanger's argument for him. I looked at few of those links and I saw a bunch of theoretical mechanics and very little data.
That was too good to pass up.
None of which provides me with data on soot levels at the poles.
(note "third polar ice cap" refers to the Himalayas)
One would also want to measure the albedo of the ice.
Do you have that data or not?
I don't have quantified data. I am not making claims as to the extent other than research I already provided. What are you attempting to do? I already provided data from links in past threads.
And yes, I know the "third pole reference." I read that article already in the past. If you recall, the Himalayas is one of the AGW scare tactics, but they claim CO2 rather than BC.
Sorry I can't be here to laugh at you 24/7 but I had a calc exam and a envi sci exam.
However, now that I'm back Ill resuming laughing.
LOL @ you citing NASA data when you want and dismissing it when it doesn't agree with what you want it to.
I'd call you WildConformationBias if Part Changer wasn't so good.
I'm not going to keep looking stuff up. You can probably find the data as easily as I can. I actually got the emissivity wrong for ice and snow. it is actually very high, which makes sense. This means it loses energy fast, and doesn't heat readily. that along with it's high albedo, ice can persist for a long time.
Emissivity
Ice 0.966 to 0.985
snow 0.96 to 1.00
water 0.95 to 0.963
black carbon 0.954 to 0.956
Wiki has this under Albedo:
I failed to find the albedo for BC in the time I gave myself. Another Hansen reference says it only takes a few billion parts per billion to decrease snow's albedo by 1%. It went on to give some approximates.
minor tangent...A soot content of only a few parts per billion (ppb) is needed to reduce snow albedo by 1%. We estimate that soot reduces snow albedos about 3% in Northern Hemisphere land areas, 1.5% in the Arctic, and 0.6% in Greenland. Climate simulations show that this modest albedo effect would cause a global warming (see Fig. 3) that is more than a quarter of the warming observed in the past century (Fig. 4).
I found this, and James Hansen surprises me. I have stated before, that left alone, he will spin what he finds, but here, he must have had others checking his work. I give you A BRIGHTER FUTURE
A Response to Don Wuebbles (Climatic Change, vol. 52, no. 4, 2002)
JAMES E. HANSEN
NASA Goddard Ins ute for Space Studies, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY, U.S.A.
Black Carbon (BC). One of our assertions is that BC (soot) plays a greater role in climate change than has been appreciated. We believe that the forcing due to BC is of the order of 1 W/m2, rather than of the order of 0.1 W/m2, as assumed by IPCC (1996).
My present estimate for global climate forcings caused by BC is: (1) 0.4 ± 0.2 W/m2 direct effect, (2) 0.3 ± 0.3 W/m2 semi-direct effect (reduction of lowlevel clouds due to BC heating; Hansen et al., 1997), (3) 0.1 ± 0.05 W/m2 ‘dirty clouds’ due to BC droplet nuclei, (4) 0.2 ± 0.1 W/m2 snow and ice darkening due to BC deposition. These estimates will be discussed in a paper in preparation. The uncertainty estimates are subjective. The net BC forcing implied is 1 ± 0.5 W/m2.
And you still provide nothing to back up your contentions.
I have in the past stated that Hansen's work is not to be trusted unless he is working with others. He has tainted NASA, which now has both good and bad references.
Ever read this:
James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic – Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’, ‘Was Never Muzzled’, & Models ‘Useless’
My contentions are the contentions of thousands of peer reviewed scientific do ents. You're the one saying those are wrong and not providing any data other than "I don't trust" "I don't believe" etc etc.
I don't believe you understand where the burden of proof currently lies. I'm not suprised you misunderstand this, however.
Par for the course.
Peerr reviewd material using false assumptions to begin with? Give me a break. Most data used now a days is someone elses work. Garbage in, garbage out. You repeatedly see things using the "Hockey Stick" when it's been show to have fallacies. Authors keep repeating false results, and therefor end up with bad reports. It multiples. Number of do ents is meaningless. Since you cannot offer any substance in a conversation, you should just go away. You don't even offer any evidence that you understand what I'm saying.
Why is what I ask so difficult.
Show me why my conclusions are wrong. i can show why AGW claims are wrong. Do you have the understanding to show me wrong?
Your hiding behind "peer review consensus" is wrong. I suppose you still think the world is flat too.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
