Reply With Quote
That isn't evidence that is innuendo.
What kind of evidence would support your claim?
They are considering different times. They are not considering how one variable (solar) in timeslot x years is less in timeslot x years than the whole, and has a presence in x+10 years, x+20 years, etc. as well.
That isn't evidence that is innuendo.
What kind of evidence would support your claim?
(redacted)
I will simply assume your claim is not true until proven otherwise.
What was the point that I was making?
Oh yeah that the authors IPCC contributors. I think that is pretty well cemented. The guys that are writing the IPCC report wrote a report detailing the things you claimed that the alarmists at the IPCC did not consider. That is literally from a simple google scholar search link on the first page. I didn't have to look the deep rather scratched the surface.
What's your point? I could only show 9 authors instead of 14. You won't even touch the science. I can only guess its from a long tradition at this point of making you look the fool. What is sad is that this most recent line comes 3 days after you told me you were just going to ignore me.
That's the best you can do? Do we need to rejoin the numbered list to rub your face in it some more? Looks like we need to rejoin it indeed.
I am running low on time, and will pick this up later as I will have to reference things for longer than I have. For now, i will post this.
I have linked articles that state the climate community has found that soot for example has a far greater effect than previously thought. More recently, UV below 200 nm. My claim to the sciences being wrong, isn't as much as what we currently know, but more to the point of them making claims of a science that is still not well known. I have, over the years, been completely correct on my statements regarding forcing changes the scientists now change claims to.
I see the problems in the solar energy budget for example. The launching if the TIM equipment has allowed for better accuracy of the energy the earth receives. The scientist now calculate somewhere in the neighborhood of a 0.6 watt/square meter difference in their budget analysis, and as believe it to be ocean absorption. This is their claim. not mine. Previously, the assumed numbers had greater error.
Now I have a simple claim that is so simple, nobody has yet disputed it. Instead, you try to focus on the complex issues and accuse me to be wrong because I can't possible understand, what these climate scientists do.
I will use the IPCC AR4 numbers. My simple claim deals with the sun's direct radiative forcing of 0.12 watts/square meter. Purhaps you remember this:
It's funny how the 0.18% 11 year average using Lean's work, and numbers from 1750 to 2004, calculate so nicely to the IPCC's 0.12 watts/square meter. Note that the difference, 67 - 66.88 = 0.12, direct atmospheric forcing changes. Now there is an increased (168 - 167.7) 0.3 to the ground and ocean, which in turn, becomes part of the greenhouse effect energy. I have stated before, and I will state again, they are claiming part of the solar increase as greenhouse gas increases, else they would claim at least a solar component of 0.42 watts/square meter, or more. If the IPCC is calculating that 0.42 from solar, then the increase would only be about 0.05%. Problem is, I believe all climate scientists agree that the solar energy to the earth has increased my no less than 0.08% since 1750, and many also have far larger numbers. I believe the average of studies is about the 0.15% I stated before.
He used to say that scientists did not consider deep ocean current convection, heat transfer etc. This is from his old argument about how there was a warmer time some period ago that warmed the deep ocean currents and that the currents came back and were the cause of the warming and not CO2. This is him just twisting that into what you are arguing now. Fluid dynamics as we know it now was developed back around the turning of the twentieth century so he has been shown stuff from back to the 30s where they applied it to ocean dynamics. He's been shown stuff from the American Meteorological Society, Harvard, Penn State, and U of Washington. Look up the max plank ins ute if you are really interested in seeing how it is modeled
Heat transfer and fluid dynamics require heavy use of partial differential equations and linear algebra to model the phenomenon and link the phenomenon into on mathematical representation. The operations to check them are even more arduous as you have alluded to.
Now it's been well established that he does not understand linearity. Look to his discussion on significant figures in this topic for proof of that. Without that baseline prima facia he does not have the mental capacity to say one way or another the math used is correctly. And just look at the math that he does here. He can plug in numbers to an equation and operate a calculator and that is about it. In his own synthesis, as you put it, he will multiply constants by ratios and that is about as 'advanced' as he gets.
You have been shown that the 'alarmists' have been considering the UV effects in published works for at least 4 years now.
You are willfully lying at this point, dumbass.
I have specified below 200 nm.
Tell you what Fuzzy. You stop lying about me, and I'll stop telling the truth about you!
Note what I am saying about his mathematical a en. We have subtraction and multiplications of ratios. You will see him regurgitate formulas such as with thermodynamic equilibrium that uses exponential operations but he only regurgitates. He doesn't grasp the importance of proportions so he sticks with 7th grade math when he is trying to work through things on his own.
cosmic rays
You really need to get some new material and read the link that I showed you. They are in there too.
The village Idiot strikes again. The UV below 200 nm that TIM measures is not cosmic rays.
You really need to get some new material and read the link that I showed you. They are in there too.
Are you really going to assert that they consider gamma and x-rays from outside the solar system but ignore the ones coming from the sun? You saying that they don't consider the sun as an x-ray source?
Please tell us more about this.
The Antarctic Half of the Global Thermohaline Circulation Is Faltering
The sudden cooling of Europe, triggered by collapse of the global thermohaline circulation in the north Atlantic and the slowing of the Gulf Stream has been popularized by the movies and the media. The southern half of the global thermohaline circulation is as important to global climate but has not been popularized. The global oceans' coldest water, Antarctic bottom water forms in several key spots around Antarctica. The water is so cold and dense that it spreads out along the bottom all of the major ocean basins except the north Atlantic and Arctic. Multiple recent reports provide strong evidence that the formation of Antarctic bottom water has slowed dramatically in response to massive subsurface melting of ice shelves and glaciers. The mel er is freshening a layer of water found between depths of 50 and 150 meters. This lightened layer is impeding the formation of Antarctic bottom water, causing the Antarctic half of the global thermohaline circulation to falter.
Update from the comments
I have been asked what's going to happen in response to the faltering of the thermohaline circulation around Antarctica. This post is based on a synthesis of very recent research reports. The key report, that found the layer of fresh water between 50 and 150 meters deep, was just published. Deward Hastings explained, in a comment, how disruptive this lens of freshened water could be to the earth's climate system and our models of it:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...n-Is-Faltering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
Fuzzy, Fuzzy, Fuzzy... What are we going to do with the village idiot?
Your pretentious, childish at ude would be so adorable, if you weren't also such a pathetic ass.
Changes in greenhouse gas concentration lead to a nonlinear response.
When the greenhouse gas concentrations are fixed, and we change the energy directed at them, their response to such changes are linear.
I didn't say that either.
Are you really going to assert that they consider gamma and x-rays from outside the solar system but ignore the ones coming from the sun? You saying that they don't consider the sun as an x-ray source?
Please tell us more about this.
Stop throwing to see what sticks if you want a debate. I have explained this before.
I'm surprised with the sigfig stupidity you laid on us before that you would try and bring up linearity again, much less put it in bold font. Shall we revisit that as well?
You're talking about solar output and making claims that they are underestimating it and putting a percentage to it. Percentages are ratios. The linearity is irrelevant to the discussion. If you want to talk about the thermodynamic properties of the things that make up the Earth and what they do and how they interact then that is a completely different discussion. You are keeping it in the real simple-minded 'energy budget' terms instead as you always do.
Do you mean the downward energy being absorbed haveing the ^1/4? Remember, the balance of it has that same energy going back upward as ^4.
Guess what... 0.25 x 4 = 1... we are once again linear!
It's called deduction.
"UV below 200nm" is stupid for "gamma and x-rays." But now it's not the UV band, its not gamma and x-rays from space ie cosmic rays. It's not x-rays from the sun apparently either. Are you proposing that the sun is a source of gamma radiation?
You regurgitate antiquated denial takes from a decade ago. It's obvious how your brain has twisted with it's special brand of stupid what those arguments were into what you present now.
LOL...
Can't keep up, so you throw another presumptive ball...
It's not going to stick.
Pssssttt....
Everyone, don't tell Fuzzy this. It's fun watching him self-destruct...
The UV band is from 10 nm to 400 nm.
That a function has an inverse does not make it linear. The behavior of radial expansion ie how the black body formula that you are referring to behaves is not a linear behavior.
Close enough. If I'm wrong.... Show me.
Keep in mind what I have said about significant digits. I'll bet your nonlinear part requires at least four significant digits in the final answer to see a change...
You are just dissembling.
As was pointed out to you from the Stanford source:
Where you going to move the goalpost to now, dimwit?Although the UV absorption composes only a small
proportion of the total incoming solar energy, it has a relatively
large 11 year SC variation, as shown in Figure 3
(bottom). Variations of up to 6% are present near 200 nm
where oxygen dissociation and ozone production occur and
up to 4% in the region 240–320 nm where absorption by
stratospheric ozone is prevalent. This compares with variations
of only ∼0.07% in TSI (see earlier discussion).
Figure 3 also shows the approximate height in the atmosphere
at which these wavelengths are absorbed. At very
short wavelengths (∼100 nm) the variations are ∼100% and
impact temperatures very high in the atmosphere. For example, the Earth’s exosphere (∼500–1000 km above the
Earth’s surface) has 11 year SC variations of ∼1000 K.
However, we concentrate in this review on describing
observations and mechanisms that involve the atmosphere
below 100 km because at present there is little evidence to
suggest a downward influence on climate from regions
above this. Transfer mechanisms from the overlying thermosphere
have been proposed, such as through wave
propagation feedbacks suggested by Arnold and Robinson
[2000]. However, there is little observational evidence for
any significant influence, although this cannot be ruled out.
I'm only proving you the idiot since you say below 200 nm is X-ray and cosmic rays. How can you be so presumptive to think that's what I mean? it's these stupid assumption of yours, as to why you are always wrong, and why I own you.
Show you?
you are inverting a formula and claiming that because it's invertible that means its linear. It's ignorant bull that demonstrates your math level well. I cannot show you because you don't know how to read the language. It's beyond your scope and if you want me to teach you then you can pay me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
