WTF are you talking about? I went to google scholar to find the probability analysis that you said didn't exist.
Your last line just goes to show you have no clue what you are talking about. Seriously just stop.The problem with your Bayesian probability, is it has not yet worked for climate sciences.
Are you saying Climate scientists don't use probability? if not, what are you saying? Why are you supporting papers that use such low "confidence levels?" Shouldn't scientific confidence bet at least 99.9% confident if you are going to claim it as being correct?
I just showed you papers where they did and now you say that I say they don't?
Shouldn't scientific confidence bet at least 99.9% confident if you are going to claim it as being correct?
Don't you consider BEST to be reporting "hearsay" when they are simply compiling other studies?
They took a parameter not a compilation. Try again.
Their temperature studies are a compilation, of which cannot accurately remove heat island effects. Their solar assessments are all parroting IPCC political-speak.
How can you take any of it serious?
So are you trying to say that the solar output range observed by IPCC is incorrect? Is that what your wishful thinking is hoping for, monkey?
Google not finding anything for you yet?
No, I'm saying the IPCC assessment of solar forcing is incorrect.
Oh do tell how you come to that conclusion. I just love laughing at you.
Pretty please go with the temperature lags solar waxing please. Pretty please.
Pull up some previous posts on the topic. I'm in no mood to repeat myself. However, I will add this. Since NASA started using TIM, they have accurate measurements of the UV spectrum that they didn't have before. They discovered that this spectruym changes more dramatically than the rest.
Now get this.
O2 and O3 reacts to UV like CO2 reacts to IR! It does interesting things to the NOx components as well.
I was asking for a legitimate scientific source not your ignorance. For future reference, when I ask for proof of some scientific assertion on your part, your word is not good enough, Dr. EZ bake.
And lets just get this out there. You going to claim that this new IPCC report does not consider what you are claiming?
FFS, 2003 is calling and wants their ty denier argument back.
Too stupid; didn't read.
A Smut Above: Unhealthy Soot in the Air Could Also Promote Global Warming
Black carbon, commonly described as soot, may play a larger role in global warmingthan previously estimated, according to a new study.
Every year in the Northern Hemisphere about 7.5 million metric tons of black carbon, the equivalent of more than 100 times Earth’s total biomass, enters the air from internal combustion engines, forest fires and other sources. The fine material absorbs sunlight almost as well as carbon dioxide—a well-known greenhouse gas—and may contribute to accelerated snowmelts and increased global temperatures.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar..._HLTH_20130122
Wild Cobra thinks science is about democracy. Not even in Star Trek.
Soot was number 3 but with recent increases especially in China it has moved up to #2.
Are you claiming NASA to be wrong?
I read it. The thing is, there is nothing firm about solar forcing except to repeat the IPCC.
Also:
According to the study, black carbon compounds have the potential to decrease the world's average temperature by 0.5 degree Celsius or warm it by 1.08 degrees C, depending on how it was produced. Previous studies lacked the observational data included in Doherty’s analysis, making earlier estimates much less accurate. Thus, policymakers have to consider the source of black carbon when drafting mitigation ordinances, Doherty says.
The change in solar measurement was back in 2003. AR4 was in 2007. This is not hard to figure out. i recall a friend who worked for a GOP senator showing me that back then. It was compelling until it was quantified to not account for the increase in world temperature. The sun is now waning anyway. Between the two your claim is just plain wrong.
Wishful thinking + stupidity = WC.
You are distorting what I said. I didn't claim anything other than implying full solar measurements are meaningless until after TIM was in service. All previous satellite measurement errors and drift are greater than the small solar changes. I think only one prior satellite looked at solar UV measurements, and TIM is the first satellite instrument with any worth while accuracy.
you continue to make unwarranted negative and incorrect claims about me. You are so stupid in that regard, you never even see it.
-dp-
Followed by
You said that IPCC assessment was incorrect because of a change in 2003. The last IPCC report was 2007 and the next one is due t come out soon.
Now you are saying that measurements previous to 2003 are irrelevant and that is all that matters. YOU ARE FULL OF .
Its clear you were referring to IPCC.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
