Give it up already. You got the whole aerosol thing laughably long, and now you're trying to rewrite English and the history of science to cover for your screwup. That's right, PolarBear says all scientists across the globe for the past century have been doing it totally wrong, while he alone knows the RealTruth. Standard cultist behavior, the claim that the select few in the cult have superior knowledge.
To rational people, it's much easier to admit your mistakes and move on, but this right-wing-fringe political cult isn't rational. One of their commandments is "Thou shalt never, ever admit the dirty liberal was right", hence all the bizarre contortions they'll go into so they can claim their dumb mistake was really correct.
I do suggest PolarBear find some more denialists to aid him here in his crybaby bully act. 3 or 4 isn't enough. Denialists require at least a 10:1 advantage before their "avalanche of bullshit" tactics can completely drown out all rationality.
After I wrote what an "aerosol" is in today`s technology Thundercrap and you posted a picture of smog which only climatologists are calling an "aerosol" while everybody who analyses smog
calls it Arirborne Particulate Matter
It`s measured as the "smoke spot number" either by air filtration which is the ASTM standard or by remote optical sensing per
DIN 51402 and also expresses the readings as a "smoke spot number. which can be converted to micrograms airborne particulate matter per cubic meter.
ASTM =
ASTM International - About ASTM International
DIN = the German Standard Norm which is for decades also the International Norm, the "ISO" and both
use the internationally agreed on nomenclature "Airborne Particulate Matter" ...not "aerosol".
I wrote 2
"aerosol" patents how the particle size can be controlled with a 1 micrometer accuracy using spray dryers
and subsequent micro encapsulation in one single "U-tube" run...
you would not even know what that is..because you`ld have to
Google for it and then lecture me what the standard Internet Idiot definition for Youtube is.
Aerosols are used in the delivery of drugs to the lungs, the
fabrication of nano-
structures in spray
drying, and the
delivery of fuels.
I got paid over a hundred grand per year while I was working on it for my "failure to understand grade -school level stuff"
So I don`t really give a shit what some armchair dim-wit expert like you wants to call me.
Oh, that's right, you're getting it from denialist propaganda, which _still_ reports that Argo is reporting cooling, even though that software error was fixed by 2007. The researcher who originally reported the cooling,
No the "Error" was not fixed ! And the IPCC propaganda was that over 2500 Argo buoys were wrong and that the data needed to be "corrected".
Every engineer who was involved with the design of these buoys protested and threatened to go public..and did.
After that "climatologists" caught yet again with their pants down while they were cheating called it a "software error".
It did not help, because in January 2013 the buoys now more than 3000 + the "removed software error" still showed the same temperature stall
Trenberth Response to Today's Loeb et al Paper on Missing Energy
We did not make a big deal about the uncertainties in the observations which are highlighted in this paper. But we were well aware of them. The main point of our paper was that yes, perhaps the observations are consistent within the error bars but if so, the error bars (uncertainties) are so large as to make the values useless. A key purpose of our paper was to challenge both the ocean heat content community and the CERES (atmospheric radiation) communities to do better. Both have responded and the situation has improved somewhat. The latest CERES data as reported here has corrected their data and found about 20% of the problem. ..
So while their conclusions may be valid: yes there is no evidence of a discrepancy, given their uncertainties, and yes there is no "statistically significant" decline in OHC rates of change, but the uncertainties are so large that neither data set is useful to know what is really going on, and that is the key point. The discrepancies among OHC data sets remain huge. We MUST do better. So the key point in their title is "within uncertainty". It should add: "but the uncertainty is too large."
And that`s why the IPCC has been holding meetings in Hobart since February 2013.
After the "software error" which the IPCC was trying to use in 2007 to "explain" the temperature stall came the " El Niño & La-Niña cop-out.
On closer examination by non- IPCC scientists that could not account for the stall either.
After that came the IPCC`s Airborne Particulate coming from China and India excuse which claimed that these blocked 0.1 Watts per square meter.
But that was untested and unproven Computer Model which was hastily conjured up by Susan Solomon`s work group
That model has been proven wrong and it has been shown that airborne paricualate matter like soot do not block 0.1 Watts per m^2 but actually add
more than that. It`s been published in book from:
This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process
However, global atmospheric absorption attributable to black carbon is too low in many models, and should be increased by a factor of almost three. After this scaling, the best estimate for the industrial-era (1750 to 2005) direct radiative forcing of atmospheric black carbon is +0.71 W m-2 with 90% uncertainty bounds of (+0.08, +1.27) W m-2. T
Climate forcings from co-emitted species are estimated and used in the framework described herein.
The uncertainties in net climate forcing from black-carbon-rich sources are substantial, largely due to lack of knowledge about cloud interactions with both black carbon and co-emitted organic carbon.
The major sources of black carbon are presently in different stages with regard to the feasibility for near-term mitigation. This assessment, by evaluating the large number and complexity of the associated physical and radiative processes in black-carbon climate forcing, sets a baseline from which to improve future climate forcing estimates.
A parallel study has shown that airborne particulates are a major factor in "cloud seeding" and do not contribute to cooling but should have added to warming.
So it`s back to the drawing board for the IPCC who has to publish the next A.N. in September this year which is expected to address the stalled temperature increase
while CO2 has increased significantly....
the predicted heat is still missing despite the crap you keep posting.
Oh, that's right, you're getting it from denialist propaganda, which _still_ reports that Argo is reporting cooling, even though that software error was fixed by 2007. The researcher who originally reported the cooling,
P.S.:
I still get paid for my work even though I`m retired and have fun with retards like you for a few minutes per day.
After that, unlike you I have a life and don`t sit in front of my PC all day long posting crap because childish assholes like you are obsessed with having the last word..this self delusional and symbolic debate winner symptom you have in common with all the other ***-libtards in this forum
