I'm quite certain the only regret you have is being called out on your bull .
Id appreciate it if neither of you bugged me about modelling until you've bothered to actually familiarize yourselves with one.
I'll be waiting for that PM, albeit without holding my breath.
No regrets here. And I develop computer models for a living, so I do know a thing or two about them. I did go to the websites of both authors mentioned in the article, just to see if they had a link to a PDF file.
WC would probably have more interest in it than I do. He seems a bit more passionate about the subject.
OK, we have a miscommunication. I have no conviction either way on the cosmic ray idea, and never held it as a prominent means of climate change. I am referring to changes in total solar power striking the earth. I haven't looked at any of their cosmic theory modeling. That area is probably above me as well.You're speaking of another matter. I was referring to this:Give me a reason why their modeling assumptions are invalid. They speak about the suns effect on cloud formation or lack thereof. This is not directly related to your indirect forcing vs CO2 forcing argument.
Sorry, I have no friendly feeling about how those people treat those who disagree with them. Good scientists careers have been damaged by not agreeing with their dogma.
Their "speculation" is used by world forces to do harm to our economy. Maybe it's not intentional, but it has happened.
CO2 is now classed a pollutant!
Until the extra starting energy is removed, the change is irrelevant.
If the solar radiance added 1.2 watts (again, I will shorten watts/square meter to watts) to the CO2 radiative effect, and the change is 1.6 watts, then something other than the sun added the 0.4 watts.
It is assumed by the IPCC that CO2 forcing increased by 1.66 watts from 1750 to present day. This might be an accurate assessment. How much of that increase is from the increased solar energy in the system? If the 0.18% is a correct number, then this by itself is adding 0.93 watts to the atmosphere. If it's evenly distributed among the greenhouse gasses, then the 0.93 watts it adds to the atmosphere appears as 0.58 watts of the CO2 increase. This would make the actual CO2 increase only 1.08 watts.
The IPCC AR4 uses 1.66 watts for CO2, 0.48 for CH4, 0.16 for N2O, and 0.34 for halocarbons. Total greenhouse effect increase of 2.64 watts. If we subtract the missing solar energy from the GHG total, then then have a 1.83 watt increase from greenhouse gasses instead of 2.64 watts. This is 69.32%, and this 62.32% of 1.66 (CO2) would become 1.15 watts.
Ever time I have tried checking, the solar increases are dismissed. I have no choice but to conclude they are hiding in some other warming component in their modeling.
It cannot only be 0.12 watts total in a correct model. It must be somewhere around 1 watt. With the feedback multipliers, it would make the change from 1750 to modern day so small, everyone would agree it's wrong who studies solar activity.
I'm sorry. The bottom line is with increased solar heat, the starting temperature before the greenhouse effect is already higher. The end result will, no doubt, be higher.
Well, simple science tells us if you add equal heat to two different temperatures of the same mass and type of material, the one that started to be hotter will also be hotter in the end.
That is of course as long as we aren't at some state change.
In climate science, they rely on the models too much and state the conclusions as fact.Name me anything that's "all knowing"......include experimental examples here too. You seem to be stuck on models "as a subs ute for experimentation". At no time will anyone advocate that. They point you in the right direction, they dont provide evidence.
Preconcieved notions?You model when experiementation isnt possible or practical. And yes, it does usually elucidate where the missing knowledge is at. In the hands of an honest researcher, it can help experimental design quite a bit.
That's what gets me. This science is so far away from being well know, yet they claim the science is settled.
Bull !
I have no use for the meteorologists who take an extra class or two to become a climatologist. How often are meteorologists right? They cannot predict the weather a week out, why should they be so arrogant to think they are right?
Ever know a climatologist willing to debate a denier?
I have too many other things going on in my life. I figure it's a waste of time because of the likely lack of response. Maybe it's not.
Someone at work has a cool sticker. I meant to transcribe it, and post it with minor editing.
"No physical training required. This forum has enough running off of the mouth....."
I think you get the point. I'll stop there instead of risk screwing it up.
Science Stunner: Editor of Journal that Published Flawed Denier Bunk Apologizes, Resigns, Slams Spencer for Exaggerations
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/0...signs-spencer/
Wow.
Faculty. I am about 80% positive I know who you are coming form similar background and I gotta say you fit in good as faculty since you have the patience to to argue with idiots.
Why don't you get to the point of all these straw man arguments?
Do any of these studies discredit Co2 as a greenhouse gas?
Because what these fools are essentially arguing that Co2 in a lab under the same temp, partial pressure and density conditions won't act the same when it's out in the environment. It's almost as they believe the some mystical power is changing what is pretty well vetted science.
You DO realize that no one is arguing that, right?
There are three central pillars to AGW:
1. The warming of the past century is somehow remarkable, unusual, unprecedented, etc.
2. Said warming is mostly caused by increased CO2 emitted by humans
3. If CO2 emissions aren't substantially curbed, we will hit so-called "tipping points", which result in rises in sea level, flooding Manhattan, etc
Could you be anymore wrong?
No, no you can't. Holy , Darrin. If you're not trolling then I have no idea how you got your degree, how you keep your job, and how you even function with such low levels of understanding.
Do I need to post the executive summaries of IPCC's reports? Are those not the central points of Gore's scifi docudrama?
Why don't you elaborate?
Please, post them. I wasn't aware that Gore was a scientist whom was integral to developing theory. But please, post those IPCC summaries.
When you post them, be sure to specifically point out where they say its unprecedented and where they mention tipping points.
Thanks!
Why'd they give that Nobel prize to Gore and IPCC in 2007?
The IPCC doesn't hand out Nobel prizes. People get things they don't deserve all the time. You have an engineering degree, right?
Why does your side get so pissy and resort to lame insults?
My side? I speak only for me. Why do I resort to lame insults? Because thats all you deserve. Look at you trolling with absolute crap and never taking an intelligent look at things but rather just run by ankle biting. You then wonder why you get insults? You cannot possibly think you ever engage anyone on this forum in a way that merits more than this? This is coming from the same person who posted the following:
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...postcount=1274
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost...postcount=1207
And thats just from the past two pages in this thread.
I've rarely seen people as patient as RG and Agloco get as frustrated with other posters the way they get frustrated with you. I give up FAR more quickly than that and resort to what entertains me but those two will keep pounding at it for a long time and you have somehow managed to alienate them.
If you were honestly asking the above question then I suggest you become more introspective and ask what it is about you that prohibits an actual debate. I'm not holding my breath.
Next we need a post from Hitler asking why no one likes him.
BTW, still waiting for you to point out 2 of your 3 pillars in that IPCC report. I'm sure you've actually read it, right?
Journal Editor Resigns Over Flawed Global Warming Paper
"Remote Sensing Editor-in-Chief Wolfgang Wagner resigned earlier today (PDF) over a global warming study published in his journal that was said to cast doubt on global warming models but was later found to be flawed. Wagner stated that the paper most likely contained fundamental methodological errors and false claims. He further expressed dismay over how 'the authors and like-minded climate skeptics have much exaggerated the paper's conclusions in public statements.' The author of the paper, Dr. Roy Spencer, has responded to the resignation."
tbh, Dr Roy Spencer sounds just like Wild Cobra... coincidence?
surprise, Darin tucked tail yet again.
Resigning over a single paper like that is highly unusual.
Peer reviewed journals strive to reach the highest levels of rigor and adherence to scientific principles.
If you read the linked pdf, his oversight in selecting the reviewers, a direct choice on his part, who did not apply appropriate levels of skepticism or review.
Peer-review's strength lies in the fact that is it perceived as tough, but fair. Any hint that it is not, and you call into question the overall integrity of the process at your publication.
He picked three reviewers who were far too friendly to the paper, and who, apparently did a ty job at the one thing they were supposed to do, i.e. catch errors and omissions.
This supports the OP of this thread rather well.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
