I think to show people just how sensitive the earth can be to natural solar changes, the graph should be plotted in kelvins, showing where zero is.
I'm thinking the forum program must have a 4095 or 4096 posting limit per thread.
I think to show people just how sensitive the earth can be to natural solar changes, the graph should be plotted in kelvins, showing where zero is.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-24-2012 at 04:01 AM. Reason: corrected "it" to "is."
The graphs ARE in Kelvins.
x 30483048309843904830984390384490843048
Delta Celsius is the exact same as Delta Kelvin.
No, you are the idiot.
I don't see zero Kelvin as a reference on the chart.I think to show people just how sensitive the earth can be to natural solar changes, the graph should be plotted in kelvins, showing where zero is.
Um, thats because neither of those Y axis are temperature but temperature ANOMALY. Hence, the DELTA. Thats what you do when you show a CHANGE.
Yes, that's what you do to amplify it to see relative differences. Even though I didn't phrase things as good as I should have, there is a purpose to show the variation from absolute.
Both absolute and differential have a place for proper discussion. To show that in the scale if things, it is so miniscule from absolute, it something people need to remember. Take that how you must. You can use it to your advantage to say our small contribution makes a difference, but please don't forget. 0.7 degrees is less than 1/4 of a percent in absolute terms.
Its the change in temperature, dolt, not the temperature.
K = C + 273 ergot
(1 + 273) - (0 + 273) = 1 - 0 = 1
I just noticed that Popaspergers edited his admission to aspergers post.
What a coward.
Wow that last WC post was one huge load of stupid.
editing 3 weeks later.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=226
Better edit that one too. You feel no compunction about posting other people's personal information on your site yet when you reveal something about your broken mind, you edit it once t becomes apparent that its socially unacceptable.
You are axis 2. That pretty much nails it as you are completely cognitive of your obsessive behavior and how your sociopathic behavior is reprehensible.
Yeah but its a derivative.....
"Quan atively, I mean a change in 814 K to 414 K will certainly be more obvious than a change from 540 C to 140 C"
I guess to somone like you who prefers to believe in AGW with no questions, doesn't understand the significance of zero.
Is there or is there not, a place in science for absolute zero?
Is it a differential or an issue of zero?
NOBODY KNOWS!!
You're about as bright as when the myth busters called a myth busted, when they used 5 PSIG (atmospheric differential) instead of 5 PSIA (absolute.)
Someone ask him what kelvin and celsius are differentiated by. It should be amusing. He's got me on ignore.
Back to the sun:
Is climate sensitive to solar variability?; excerpt:
We estimate that the Sun
could account for as much as 69% of the
increase in Earth’s average temperature,
depending on the TSI reconstruction
used. Furthermore, if the Sun does
cool off, as some solar forecasts predict
will happen over the next few decades,
that cooling could stabilize Earth’s climate
and avoid the catastrophic consequences
predicted in the IPCC report.
can you Idso suckers refute this:
"As such, a number of comments in this thread have cited 'CO2science.org' - this is a website run by Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
Be aware this website is a product of a small think tank that is run by four members of the same family, headed by Sherwood Idso, that has been funded by Exxonmobil and the Western Fuels Association. "
http://api.economist.com/node/18386161/comments
Is that another one of these places that get maybe 0.002% of their funding from an oil company, so you assume they are biased for the oil company?
"Is that another one of these places that get maybe 0.002% of their funding from an oil company"
"Do Your Own Research" (c) WC
Is this part of your delusions from your Psychosis? You really need to seek treatment as you are now imagining things. Why did you fabricate things in your other posts?
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing Roy Spencer's credibility as a scientist.
Perhaps you could help me clear up my confusion about the issue so I can avoid future mistakes, given that I dont' understand the science and have to make judgments about who to believe is probably right.
If a scientist expresses a belief in Intelligent Design does that indicate one should assign more or less credibility to that scientist overall?
WC,
By all means then put what you are trying to say down, punch up the words until it is what you are trying to get at, and remove whatever you think is my "twist":
That, to me, seems to be what you are trying to say about the extra CO2 in our atmosphere."Humans are not emitting enough CO2 to appreciably raise atmospheric concentrations.
Atmospheric concentrations are rising, so it must be coming from the warming oceans.
Since it is coming from the oceans, the oceans must be absorbing our extra emissions.
Therefore humans are not emitting enough CO2 to appreciably raise atmospheric concentrations. "
You will recall your estimation of human contributions is "at most" only 10 ppm.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)