Reply With Quote
You are reduced to trying to get me on semantics. x-rays and cosmic rays are both below 200 nm. So what energy source are you saying they don't consider?
Translation: Fuzzy is talking out his ass again.
You are reduced to trying to get me on semantics. x-rays and cosmic rays are both below 200 nm. So what energy source are you saying they don't consider?
You are taking the expression for energy absorption and emission and making the claim that because one is expressed as the square of a square and the other as a sqrt of a sqrt then that means they are linear. It's stupid.
What do relativity mean?
Well, what idiot, when another specifies UV below 200 nm, thinks of cosmic or X-ray?
Are there other village idiots other than you who do?
LOL...
Can you say significance?
Seeing that you were just shown the UV information I figured you wouldn't double down on the intellectually dishonest stupidity so soon. That was the whole point of the link: they do look at the UV band. My bad.
So you retracting the <200nm assertion or you just going to keep rolling with it?
Nice try, but you are still a presumptive dip .
Retract it? no. Why should I?
Sure you change the proportions, dimwit. 1000 100 10 1 .1 .01 .001 .0001
That was the point that I was trying to make. You have no sense of proportion or scale.
Because you have seen a quote of them talking about the range ~100nm. I bolded it for you.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post6472730
LOL...
Fuzzy, I stand corrected. I don't own you. You own yourself. You don't need any help looking bad. You don't understand what you posted.
maybe you should look at this link:
link: Solar radiation and Climate Experiment
Look at the measurement range of 110 to 310 nm.
Was I talking about 100 nm?
I wasn't talking about 100nm I was talking about ~100nm. Do you understand the difference?
So?
the variations are greater as you approach 200 nm. aren't they? Why do you try to treat is as an "all or nothing" thing.
Oh wait, my bad, that's your MO...
Fuzzy...
I'm getting tired of your nonsense. Let me know when you have something meaningful.
So you go from they don't consider UV then you go to they don't consider <200nm. Now it's this. You keep babbling about me trying to get something to stick.....
None of which is evidence of your claim:
I asked you a very simple follow up:Again, the science here is being taught incorrectly.
What would be evidence of this claim?
Your post does not answer that question.
Meh. 200nm, 100nm, 1360wpm2, 1360 wpm2, I don't really care at this point.
In the end, the science is a lot more solid than WC seems to think, even to my eye. The solution to mitigate the risk will not cause any economic catastrophe and quite arguably would bolster our economy.
That is what makes the whole thing somewhat moot to me.
We have pretty good indications that we should probably quit emitting so much CO2, regardless of the minutae that WC seems hyper-focused on. The benefits of acting outweigh the costs.
I can, and have backed up that claim, and have pretty thoroughly debunked the "economic catastrophe" claim that doing somethign to limit Co2 would be that bad.
The course of action seems clear enough, that I am content to let the science run its course.
The science will get better, the more data we collect and the longer time we study it. That much is obvious. If there is some grand conspiracy or big mistake or whatever the slobbering deniers think is going on, that will be found out eventually.
Sense And Sensitivity: How The Economist Got It Wrong On Warming
The article focused heavily on claims that the slowed warming of Earth’s surface in recent years implies a dramatically lowered estimate of climate sensitivity. The claim was primarily supported by a single as-yet unpublished article by a group in Norway, which attempts to use instrumental temperature evidence available back through the late 19th century to estimate the climate sensitivity. The authors of that article conclude that use of data to the year 2000 yields a climate sensitivity of 3.9°C, which is at the high end of the generally accepted 2 to 4.5°C range. Yet they find that by including just an additional decade of data (i.e. using observations available through 2010), the estimate falls by nearly half, to 1.9°C.
It should be a red flag that an estimate of climate sensitivity would change by a factor of two based only on the addition of a decade of data. In reality, the climate sensitivity now is not half what it was a decade ago. So where did the Norwegian study go wrong?
One likely culprit is that the role of natural climate variability, which is particularly important on timescales of a decade or less, was not properly accounted for in the analysis. One recent article published in the Journal of Geophysical Research found that internal natural variability (for example, natural oscillations in the climate like those associated with the El Niño phenomenon) can result in a sizable discrepancy (errors approaching 1°C) between the true climate sensitivity and the value of climate sensitivity derived from the instrumental record alone.
Yet another recent study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters has argued that previously unaccounted-for effects of low-level volcanic eruptions may have offset more of the warming than scientists realised over the past decade.
And still another study published recently in Geophysical Research Letters suggests that any slowing of surface warming during the past decade may have been associated with a recent accelerated penetration of heat into the deeper oceans.
This conclusion is consistent with other recent studies finding unprecedented warming taking place in the deep oceans. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), about 90 per cent of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, while just two per cent heats the atmosphere. So the climate continues to warm, and all we may be seeing is a small change in how that warmth is being distributed between the ocean and atmosphere.
It is further unfortunate that the piece provided so little of the larger scientific context necessary for readers to appreciate the current state of scientific knowledge about climate sensitivity. Most critically, the article didn’t address why it is that the consensus estimate of climate sensitivity remains around 3°C.
When the collective information from all of these independent sources of information is combined, climate scientists indeed find evidence for a climate sensitivity that is very close to the canonical 3°C estimate. That estimate still remains the scientific consensus, and current generation climate models — which tend to cluster in their climate sensitivity values around this estimate — remain our best tools for projecting future climate change and its potential impacts.
Given that it will take a significant effort to avoid doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, from a policy perspective arguments about the precise climate sensitivity are somewhat irrelevant. Even at the lower end of the estimated sensitivity range, the projected impacts of climate change are likely to be devastating to human civilisation and our environment. What it will take to avoid such a scenario is what we – and The Economist – ought to be focusing on.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ng-on-warming/
You can make the models as complex as you want, but the mercury ain't cooperatin'.
Well RG, if you have made up your mind, then OK... Don't know what to do. As for me "running out of time" it was less than 1/2 before I needed to leave for work. I was going to find the studies of TSI used by the AR4. They have a range of TSI by study. If that simple modified graphic doesn't cry foul made by the alarmist climate scientists to you, then wow. Just wow...
OK, I found the TSI papers they used for AR4:
0.00 W/m^2 Dziembowski et al. (2001)
0.65 W/m^2 Hoyt and Schatten (1993)
0.38 W/m^2 Lean (2000)
0.45 W/m^2 Lean et al. (1992)
0.45 W/m^2 Lean et al. (1995)
0.00 W/m^2 Schatten and Orosz (1990)
0.68 W/m^2 Solanki and Fligge (1999)
0.10 W/m^2 Y. Wang et al. (2005)
That's a pretty large variation for any scientific consensus. In the end, they used 0.12 W/m^2.
These are minimum to minimum values used above. The accompanying note states that the average values are 0.09 W/m^2 higher.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-12-2013 at 05:38 PM.
It's the margin of error that is significant. I know a single number is hard to figure for you but try and think of a range of numbers.
andyou still cannot get past the conservation of energy viewpoint. Tell us some more about heat hiding out in the deep oceans.
You are so deeply wrong. Do you really think I don't understand conservation of energy? You may have a great deal of education, but you are a total idiot. Education does not make intelligence.It's the margin of error that is significant. I know a single number is hard to figure for you but try and think of a range of numbers.
and
I never said that you didn't understand it. I am laughing because you cannot grasp a concept more difficult than 'energy budget,' Dr. EZ Bake.
It must be sad being you. Being wrong so often.
Bye. I see you still have nothing to discuss.
No, that's your limited perception that doesn't allow you to realize I am smarter than you.
Any time we begin discussing how they model the various thermodynamics, hydrodynamics or any other dynamic you display your incapacity. This has been demonstrated which is obvious because you won't even try and discuss the various differentials they use. No instead you go back to your W/sqm sums. You even have you cute little pictures so you know what to add and subtract. You do this in every climate thread and it's like a kid with coloring books. Any objective observer can see your arguments as they come.
Soot, ocean as a soda, uv, deep ocean currents, energy budget, academics conspiracy.
You will talk about the soda because the math is only ratios of partial pressures: easy multiplication. You can do the energy budget because it's additive. You recall what happened when we got into ocean dynamics?
http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpresse...nb66r_ch13.pdf
Let's discuss it. I enjoy harmonic analysis.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions