So, Why all of the temp adjustments?

[polarbear]

It isn't the composition of the air per se that matters, its the infra-red absorption cross section.

By the way while You are trying to Google for a solution how long it would take to heat a room to 20 from 0 with a 1000 watt heater tell me how that could be done without convection...
Should not be a problem with a, infrared heat lamp + ~300 ppm CO2!
Or is it? Where the hell do you and the rest of your occult get the idea from that the IR that CO2 absorbs at the CO2 C-O bond stretch and scissor vibrations degrees of freedom RAISES THE TEMPERATURE of the gas?
Raising the thermal ENERGY of a gas and raising the TEMPERATURE are 2 totally different things.
Here...ask your mommie or daddy to explain it to you:
Thermal energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
+
Heat capacity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thermal energy is the part of the total internal energy of a thermodynamic system or sample of matter that results in the system TEMPERATURE 1]

This quantity may be difficult to determine or even meaningless unless the system has attained its temperature only through heating,

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Raising the thermal ENERGY of a gas and raising the TEMPERATURE are 2 totally different things.

Totally different, right?

From your own link

Thermal energy is the part of the total internal energy of a thermodynamic system or sample of matter that results in the system temperature.[1] T

 

[polarbear]

Raising the thermal ENERGY of a gas and raising the TEMPERATURE are 2 totally different things.

Totally different, right?

From your own link

Thermal energy is the part of the total internal energy of a thermodynamic system or sample of matter that results in the system temperature.[1] T

A bird brain has a longer attention span than You do!...
Can`t You read to the end of a sentence that is longer than 3 words?

Thermal energy is the part of the total internal energy of a thermodynamic system or sample of matter that results in the system temperature.[1] This quantity may be difficult to determine or even meaningless unless the system has attained its temperature only through heating, and not been subjected to work input or output, or any other energy-changing processes.

The part I highlighted in red is the part that you and the rest of the CO2 absorbs IR===> + T,===> heat- back radiation===> "global warming" fallacy cooks simply don`t understand...and that the "climate models" ignore...and that Hansen, who should know but uses a 100% conversion to TEMPEARATURE anyway !!!

 

[polarbear]

Based on your absurd standards, it would be incorrect for me to claim that turning on a heater will warm up a room until I can exactly predict every single air current in that room.

But You expect no less from engineers when they have to do the math for a thermal power plant or a foundry when they have to calculate minimum chimney heights accurate within inches:
Stack effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the air inside your "climate model box" would behave like it does in these childish "climate models" and a "CO2 greenhouse" then there should be no such thing as a stack effect. Popular belief is that we design tall chimneys so that the smoke exits above the air people breathe,...and I`m 100% certain you believed that as well.!!!
So what the hell would you know about the difference in air temperature from floor to ceiling in a heated room and how that is the reverse outside !

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Raising the thermal ENERGY of a gas and raising the TEMPERATURE are 2 totally different things.

Totally different, right?

From your own link

A bird brain has a longer attention span than You do!...
Can`t You read to the end of a sentence that is longer than 3 words?

Thermal energy is the part of the total internal energy of a thermodynamic system or sample of matter that results in the system temperature.[1] This quantity may be difficult to determine or even meaningless unless the system has attained its temperature only through heating, and not been subjected to work input or output, or any other energy-changing processes.

The part I highlighted in red is the part that you and the rest of the CO2 absorbs IR===> + T,===> heat- back radiation===> "global warming" fallacy cooks simply don`t understand...and that the "climate models" ignore...and that Hansen, who should know but uses a 100% conversion to TEMPEARATURE anyway !!!

LOL! Sorry climate models don't ignore thermodynamics.

 

[flacaltenn]

Those are weather model. They're pretty good ones, too.


Whether or not a particular hurricane hits New Orleans or Miami has little bearing on global climate.


Government grants don't call for particular scientific results.



Based on your absurd standards, it would be incorrect for me to claim that turning on a heater will warm up a room until I can exactly predict every single air current in that room.

Not Zactly... It's not a rejection of the fact that the heater will warm the room to some extent. It's a rejection of the theory that changing the air composition in minute ways will significantly affect the result..


Especially since we all know the water vapor content in the room will DOMINATE in the heating effect..

It isn't the composition of the air per se that matters, its the infra-red absorption cross section.

Well there's truth to that if you've got a broadband heat source. But in the case of CO2 3 of its 5 absorption bands are SWAMPED by water vapor. An effect that adds to the LOGARITHMIC forcing function for CO2. In fact -- when you consider the absorption spectrum as a filter to the available energy in the thermal source -- it will SATURATE at some point where NO ADDITIONAL broadband energy is AVAILABLE to create thermal retention IN THOSE BANDS.

So each doubling of CO2 leads to smaller and smaller percent increases in that absorption. A very inconvienient basic truth for those who want people to assume that 2000ppm of CO2 would be 5 times worse than 400ppm.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So each doubling of CO2 leads to smaller and smaller percent increases in that absorption.

No one disputes that.

A very inconvienient basic truth for those who want people to assume that 2000ppm of CO2 would be 5 times worse than 400ppm.

No one does that.

 

[flacaltenn]

So each doubling of CO2 leads to smaller and smaller percent increases in that absorption.

No one disputes that.

A very inconvienient basic truth for those who want people to assume that 2000ppm of CO2 would be 5 times worse than 400ppm.

No one does that.

It's done all the TIME by OMISSION.. Because NOWHERE in the public discourse are facts like these presented. You poll folks who claim to be knowledgeable about the AGW debate and I guarantee that MOST if not 90%+ will not know that effects from CO2 concentrations are not linear.

This is one reason why there is no Al Gore or high level debate of the topic in the public forum.. Because IGNORANCE and blind allegiance to the scientific elite is ESSENTIAL for the agenda.. The more the message is controlled -- the better the chances that the political agenda will succeed.

 

[polarbear]

So each doubling of CO2 leads to smaller and smaller percent increases in that absorption.

No one disputes that.

A very inconvienient basic truth for those who want people to assume that 2000ppm of CO2 would be 5 times worse than 400ppm.

No one does that.

It's done all the TIME by OMISSION.. Because NOWHERE in the public discourse are facts like these presented. You poll folks who claim to be knowledgeable about the AGW debate and I guarantee that MOST if not 90%+ will not know that effects from CO2 concentrations are not linear.

This is one reason why there is no Al Gore or high level debate of the topic in the public forum.. Because IGNORANCE and blind allegiance to the scientific elite is ESSENTIAL for the agenda.. The more the message is controlled -- the better the chances that the political agenda will succeed.

Who cares what a few cooks like him are blabbering. The only "audience" these doomsday freaks have left is a forum like this and even here
all they can do is parrot the same old garbage over and over again.
What matters is that the rest of the world realized what kind of crap it was that M.Mann, Hansen etc were trying to sell through
U.N. bureaucrats to gullible politicians and gullible left leaning media outlets that naive people who can't do their own thinking dialed into.
Well that's all over for quite some time now in most of the countries where the "Green & sustainable energy" had traction for
a short little while. It just takes a little bit longer in countries like the U.S. with a large population because of the mass (stupidity) inertia effect.
Every country has its own %-age share of stupid people and when a country has over 300 Million people instead of just
70 or 30 Million people that stupidity inertia effect carries on a little longer before it comes to a screeching halt as it did in Germany, Canada, China etc.
China was quick despite it`s size because the government controls 100% of the media,...so it`s Okay to build a new coal fired plant on average every 10 days in China.
If frauds like Hansen, M.Mann etc. can boast about a million Tweety bird-brained followers or doomsday.org web page clickers that
is only an absolute number and neither Tweet or any Google Analytic express how many % of the population these cooks
represent. That absolute number of naive people is way too small in countries with a smaller population than the U.S.
The largest media outlets can't afford to cater to these few cooks any more. After all, the independant News Media does have to worry about audience ratings because
that's where their revenue comes from, unless of course they are tax subsidized media outlets.
Sun News, by far the largest media chain in Canada had this to say about Hansen:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3d82VrKoCo&list=UUvj7dbOY14kt_MFIR1Y1iwA&index=1&feature=plcp"]Hansen`s Nonsense draws Media Fire - YouTube[/ame]


And that's on "prime time". Sun News is the most watched Cable News Channel in Canada and is also on every dish network service
+ has radio stations +the largest newspaper editions in every city.
And all the other media outlets, even the left leaning media simply don't care any more what noises Hansen, M.Mann or the IPCC are making.
It's not that Canadians did not know already what Sun News had to say about Hansen & the IPCC. After all that was thee reason why
Canadian voters annihilated the liberals and semi-communist cook parties in our last federal elections.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So each doubling of CO2 leads to smaller and smaller percent increases in that absorption.

No one disputes that.

A very inconvienient basic truth for those who want people to assume that 2000ppm of CO2 would be 5 times worse than 400ppm.

No one does that.

It's done all the TIME by OMISSION.. Because NOWHERE in the public discourse are facts like these presented.

Really? Its not in the "public discourse" ? How did you get them then? By doing the theory and experiments all on your own? Or by breaking into a scientists office and stealing the information?

You poll folks who claim to be knowledgeable about the AGW debate and I guarantee that MOST if not 90%+ will not know that effects from CO2 concentrations are not linear.

You poll them yourself.

 

[flacaltenn]

Holy Molson pardner.. I may have to consider moving North for a free press and freer minds..

But don't you worry.. Your Canada is gonna get a HUGE new Solar Farm courtesy of American taxpayers. First Solar is getting Import/Export loans to sell ITSELF Solar panels just for you..

You're very welcome..

Hope you keep them clear of snow/ice now.. So get out the large size snow brushes !!!!

Now -- when you gonna build us a couple new REAL power plants???

 

[Trakar]

"Climate model" super-computers can't give us the exact location of the impact of a hurricane within a day or two. How the hell can they determine the doomsday effects of man made global warming? It's a rhetorical question of course. With a little skewing of input data the "researchers can get all the results the government grants call for.

Better buy better foil, your shiny cap may not stop all the mind control rays those secret government minions are transmitting through the new digital signal broadcast network signals, I hear those screwy little mercury lamps are supposed to amplify the signals.

s0n..........not that Im hoping for it mind you, but lets face it............you're heading for the box soon and I'd suggest that instead of spending the last few years of your life being miserable because you insist on advocating fringe views........find a hobby or something to occupy your mind with. Be a winner.........dont waste the golden years being a miserable **** like so many on the fringe left. This idea that all your efforts are going to yield you living to see a day when wodden ships float into your harbor arent happening s0n!! Candlelight wont be making a comeback.


Youve spent years throwing bombs and getting all caught up in this climate BS and what has it gained you? DICK.............the environmental radicals are actually going backwards as compared to 2006 or so. Lets face it..........climate change legislation has become a radioactive topic on the Hill for a long, long, long time now. And it aint changing anytime soon...........just sayin'..........

I'm just trying to warn you that the corn you are eating is warm for a reason, and that area you keep digging it out of isn't a hole in the ground,...but far beit from me to proscribe an individual's personal nutritional choices.
Bon Appétit!

 

[Old Rocks]

No one disputes that.

No one does that.

It's done all the TIME by OMISSION.. Because NOWHERE in the public discourse are facts like these presented. You poll folks who claim to be knowledgeable about the AGW debate and I guarantee that MOST if not 90%+ will not know that effects from CO2 concentrations are not linear.

This is one reason why there is no Al Gore or high level debate of the topic in the public forum.. Because IGNORANCE and blind allegiance to the scientific elite is ESSENTIAL for the agenda.. The more the message is controlled -- the better the chances that the political agenda will succeed.

Who cares what a few cooks like him are blabbering. The only "audience" these doomsday freaks have left is a forum like this and even here
all they can do is parrot the same old garbage over and over again.
What matters is that the rest of the world realized what kind of crap it was that M.Mann, Hansen etc were trying to sell through
U.N. bureaucrats to gullible politicians and gullible left leaning media outlets that naive people who can't do their own thinking dialed into.
Well that's all over for quite some time now in most of the countries where the "Green & sustainable energy" had traction for
a short little while. It just takes a little bit longer in countries like the U.S. with a large population because of the mass (stupidity) inertia effect.
Every country has its own %-age share of stupid people and when a country has over 300 Million people instead of just
70 or 30 Million people that stupidity inertia effect carries on a little longer before it comes to a screeching halt as it did in Germany, Canada, China etc.
China was quick despite it`s size because the government controls 100% of the media,...so it`s Okay to build a new coal fired plant on average every 10 days in China.
If frauds like Hansen, M.Mann etc. can boast about a million Tweety bird-brained followers or doomsday.org web page clickers that
is only an absolute number and neither Tweet or any Google Analytic express how many % of the population these cooks
represent. That absolute number of naive people is way too small in countries with a smaller population than the U.S.
The largest media outlets can't afford to cater to these few cooks any more. After all, the independant News Media does have to worry about audience ratings because
that's where their revenue comes from, unless of course they are tax subsidized media outlets.
Sun News, by far the largest media chain in Canada had this to say about Hansen:


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3d82VrKoCo&list=UUvj7dbOY14kt_MFIR1Y1iwA&index=1&feature=plcp"]Hansen`s Nonsense draws Media Fire - YouTube[/ame]


And that's on "prime time". Sun News is the most watched Cable News Channel in Canada and is also on every dish network service
+ has radio stations +the largest newspaper editions in every city.
And all the other media outlets, even the left leaning media simply don't care any more what noises Hansen, M.Mann or the IPCC are making.
It's not that Canadians did not know already what Sun News had to say about Hansen & the IPCC. After all that was thee reason why
Canadian voters annihilated the liberals and semi-communist cook parties in our last federal elections.

You see, Ooh Pah, there is a reason for the Bi-Polar moniker.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Climate Change Crazies" yeah, that fits

 

[polarbear]

No one disputes that.


No one does that.

It's done all the TIME by OMISSION.. Because NOWHERE in the public discourse are facts like these presented.

Really? Its not in the "public discourse" ? How did you get them then? By doing the theory and experiments all on your own? Or by breaking into a scientists office and stealing the information?

You poll folks who claim to be knowledgeable about the AGW debate and I guarantee that MOST if not 90%+ will not know that effects from CO2 concentrations are not linear.

You poll them yourself.

"Or by breaking into a scientists office and stealing the information?"

That`s easier than You think it is:
Apache/2.2.16 (Debian) Server at geoflop.uchicago.edu Port 80
Index of /forecast

And the fact that they do not consider the difference between ABSORBANCE and ABSORPTION is right there:
Atmospheric pCO2
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/tmp/isam.2.09094417.gif

[/FONT] Radiative Forcing

Global Mean Temperature

If You knew anything about calculus then you`ld also know that there is no way that the temperature can be a linear proportional function of the CO2 IR absorption which is a non linear log function.
If You click on that:
Modtran Infrared Atmospheric Radiation Code

then run the model with CO2 starting @ 250 ppm then repeat to ~350 ppm or more and check the numeric output on the right side then You can see that the delta T increase the best ISDN computer model puts out is a LINEAR 0.1 per 10 ppm CO2 increase....

which is exactly the point "flacaltenn" was making.!!!


I know for a fact that this is their latest "readjustment" to make these models conform to the historic data after "deniers" that know their math pointed out that none of the computer models could conform with the actual data that we have for the past and what these models put out for the corresponding CO2 ppm .
I`m almost beginning to feel sorry for these sorry sacks of shitheads...go there:
Index of /forecast

Then click on "parent directory" and You get:
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/
It works!


It`s not rocket science to follow how they alter data all the time:
Index of /forecast
[ICO] Name Last modified Size Description
[DIR] Parent Directory -
[DIR] archive/ 18-Sep-2009 16:28 -
[DIR] cgi-bin/ 09-Aug-2012 05:11 -
[DIR] cgidata/ 18-Sep-2009 16:28 -
[DIR] docs/ 19-Jan-2012 10:12 -
[ ] geoflop.out 09-Oct-2009 16:48 34K
[DIR] tmp/ 09-Aug-2012 09:44 -

Hey they where at it again even today:
Index of /forecast/tmp
09-Aug-2012 09:41 1.8K
isam.0.09094410.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:44 1.8K
[IMG] isam.0.09094417.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:44 1.8K
[IMG] isam.1.09094156.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:41 2.0K
[IMG] isam.1.09094410.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:44 2.0K
[IMG] isam.1.09094417.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:44 2.0K
[IMG] isam.2.09094156.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:41 1.7K
[IMG] isam.2.09094410.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:44 1.6K
[IMG] isam.2.09094417.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:44 1.6K
[IMG] isam.3.09094156.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:41 1.7K
[IMG] isam.3.09094410.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:44 1.8K
[IMG] isam.3.09094417.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:44 1.8K
[IMG] isam.4.09094156.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:41 1.8K
[IMG] isam.4.09094410.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:44 1.7K
[IMG] isam.4.09094417.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:44 1.7K
[IMG] isam.5.09094156.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:41 2.1K
[IMG] isam.5.09094410.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:44 2.1K
[IMG] isam.5.09094417.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:44 2.1K


[SIZE=4][B]So why all the adjustments...???? [/B][/SIZE]
...if they did have it right as they still insist there should be no need to "re-adjust" either the data or the "math"...if you want to call complete joke like that "math"

If You knew anything about programming with C+ then You`ld know what this is all about:
[URL]http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/geoflop.out[/URL]

[B]I do !!!....[/B]because that was my job...writing computer models for engineering projects
[SIZE=4][B][SIZE=6]So why all the adjustments...????[/SIZE] [/B][/SIZE]
[B]
Which is the topic of this thread...!

And by the way here is the proper Math:
[/B][URL]http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm[/URL]
[quote][FONT=Arial, Geneva][B][COLOR=#800000][SIZE=+1]Dr. Heinz Hug
[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Geneva]The [B][I]radiative forcing for doubling[/I][/B] can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] [B][COLOR=#800000][SIZE=-1][14][/SIZE][/COLOR][/B] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band as observed from satellite measurements [B][COLOR=#800000][SIZE=-1](Hanel et al., 1971)[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B] and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] - and not 4.3 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE].[/FONT]
[B][FONT=Arial, Geneva]This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.[/FONT][/B]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]If we allocate 7.2 degC as greenhouse effect for the present CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] (as asserted by Kondratjew and Moskalenko in J.T. Houghton's book [B][I][COLOR=#800000]The Global Climate[/COLOR][/I][/B] [B][COLOR=#800000][SIZE=-1][14][/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]), the doubling effect should be 0.17% which is 0.012 degC only. If we take 1/80 of the 1.2 degC that result from Stefan-Boltzmann's law with a radiative forcing of 4.3 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE], we get a similar value of 0.015 degC.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]Kondratjew and Moskalenko are referring to their own work [B][COLOR=#800000][SIZE=-1][15][/SIZE][/COLOR][/B] - but when we checked their Russian book on that page, it turned out that this was nothing but an index of terms and nowhere else a deduction of this broadly referred 7.2 K figure [B][COLOR=#800000][SIZE=-1][16] [/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]could be found. It should be mentioned that the radiative forcing for the present CO[SIZE=-2]2 [/SIZE]concentration varies considerably among references. K.P. Shine [B][COLOR=#800000][SIZE=-1][17][/SIZE][/COLOR][/B] specifies a value of 12 K whereas according to R. Lindzen CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] only accounts for about 5% of the natural 33 degC greenhouse effect. This 1.65 degC is less than a quarter of the value used by IPCC and leads to a doubling sensitivity of 0.3 to 0.5 degC only [B][COLOR=#800000][SIZE=-1][18][/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]What is really true? Is there anybody to present a scientific derivation or a reference where this figure is not copied or just stated from assumptions, but properly calculated?[/FONT]
[/quote]

 

[flacaltenn]

No one disputes that.


No one does that.

It's done all the TIME by OMISSION.. Because NOWHERE in the public discourse are facts like these presented.

Really? Its not in the "public discourse" ? How did you get them then? By doing the theory and experiments all on your own? Or by breaking into a scientists office and stealing the information?

You poll folks who claim to be knowledgeable about the AGW debate and I guarantee that MOST if not 90%+ will not know that effects from CO2 concentrations are not linear.

You poll them yourself.

My level of investment in this debate exceeds rationality. I've made enviro topics almost a parallel career.. So I would never assume that the readers of USA Today know ANYTHING that hasn't been clearly vetted by the AGW crowd.. The lack of public debate and discourse is BECAUSE they can't afford to let people THINK about this topic.

Like I said -- OMISSION is also a form of scientific dishonesty...

 

[flacaltenn]

It's done all the TIME by OMISSION.. Because NOWHERE in the public discourse are facts like these presented.

Really? Its not in the "public discourse" ? How did you get them then? By doing the theory and experiments all on your own? Or by breaking into a scientists office and stealing the information?

You poll them yourself.

"Or by breaking into a scientists office and stealing the information?"

That`s easier than You think it is:
Apache/2.2.16 (Debian) Server at geoflop.uchicago.edu Port 80
Index of /forecast

And the fact that they do not consider the difference between ABSORBANCE and ABSORPTION is right there:
Atmospheric pCO2
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/tmp/isam.2.09094417.gif

[/FONT] Radiative Forcing

Global Mean Temperature

If You knew anything about calculus then you`ld also know that there is no way that the temperature can be a linear proportional function of the CO2 IR absorption which is a non linear log function.
If You click on that:
Modtran Infrared Atmospheric Radiation Code

then run the model with CO2 starting @ 250 ppm then repeat to ~350 ppm or more and check the numeric output on the right side then You can see that the delta T increase the best ISDN computer model puts out is a LINEAR 0.1 per 10 ppm CO2 increase....

which is exactly the point "flacaltenn" was making.!!!


I know for a fact that this is their latest "readjustment" to make these models conform to the historic data after "deniers" that know their math pointed out that none of the computer models could conform with the actual data that we have for the past and what these models put out for the corresponding CO2 ppm .
I`m almost beginning to feel sorry for these sorry sacks of shitheads...go there:
Index of /forecast

Then click on "parent directory" and You get:
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/
It works!


It`s not rocket science to follow how they alter data all the time:
Index of /forecast
[ICO] Name Last modified Size Description
[DIR] Parent Directory -
[DIR] archive/ 18-Sep-2009 16:28 -
[DIR] cgi-bin/ 09-Aug-2012 05:11 -
[DIR] cgidata/ 18-Sep-2009 16:28 -
[DIR] docs/ 19-Jan-2012 10:12 -
[ ] geoflop.out 09-Oct-2009 16:48 34K
[DIR] tmp/ 09-Aug-2012 09:44 -

Hey they where at it again even today:
Index of /forecast/tmp
09-Aug-2012 09:41 1.8K
isam.0.09094410.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:44 1.8K
[IMG] isam.0.09094417.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:44 1.8K
[IMG] isam.1.09094156.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:41 2.0K
[IMG] isam.1.09094410.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:44 2.0K
[IMG] isam.1.09094417.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:44 2.0K
[IMG] isam.2.09094156.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:41 1.7K
[IMG] isam.2.09094410.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:44 1.6K
[IMG] isam.2.09094417.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:44 1.6K
[IMG] isam.3.09094156.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:41 1.7K
[IMG] isam.3.09094410.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:44 1.8K
[IMG] isam.3.09094417.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:44 1.8K
[IMG] isam.4.09094156.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:41 1.8K
[IMG] isam.4.09094410.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:44 1.7K
[IMG] isam.4.09094417.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:44 1.7K
[IMG] isam.5.09094156.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:41 2.1K
[IMG] isam.5.09094410.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:44 2.1K
[IMG] isam.5.09094417.gif 09-Aug-2012 09:44 2.1K


[SIZE=4][B]So why all the adjustments...???? [/B][/SIZE]
...if they did have it right as they still insist there should be no need to "re-adjust" either the data or the "math"...if you want to call complete joke like that "math"

If You knew anything about programming with C+ then You`ld know what this is all about:
[URL]http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/geoflop.out[/URL]

[B]I do !!!....[/B]because that was my job...writing computer models for engineering projects
[SIZE=4][B][SIZE=6]So why all the adjustments...????[/SIZE] [/B][/SIZE]
[B]
Which is the topic of this thread...!

And by the way here is the proper Math:
[/B][url=http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm]The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact[/url]
[quote][FONT=Arial, Geneva][B][COLOR=#800000][SIZE=+1]Dr. Heinz Hug
[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Geneva]The [B][I]radiative forcing for doubling[/I][/B] can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] [B][COLOR=#800000][SIZE=-1][14][/SIZE][/COLOR][/B] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band as observed from satellite measurements [B][COLOR=#800000][SIZE=-1](Hanel et al., 1971)[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B] and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] - and not 4.3 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE].[/FONT]
[B][FONT=Arial, Geneva]This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.[/FONT][/B]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]If we allocate 7.2 degC as greenhouse effect for the present CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] (as asserted by Kondratjew and Moskalenko in J.T. Houghton's book [B][I][COLOR=#800000]The Global Climate[/COLOR][/I][/B] [B][COLOR=#800000][SIZE=-1][14][/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]), the doubling effect should be 0.17% which is 0.012 degC only. If we take 1/80 of the 1.2 degC that result from Stefan-Boltzmann's law with a radiative forcing of 4.3 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE], we get a similar value of 0.015 degC.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]Kondratjew and Moskalenko are referring to their own work [B][COLOR=#800000][SIZE=-1][15][/SIZE][/COLOR][/B] - but when we checked their Russian book on that page, it turned out that this was nothing but an index of terms and nowhere else a deduction of this broadly referred 7.2 K figure [B][COLOR=#800000][SIZE=-1][16] [/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]could be found. It should be mentioned that the radiative forcing for the present CO[SIZE=-2]2 [/SIZE]concentration varies considerably among references. K.P. Shine [B][COLOR=#800000][SIZE=-1][17][/SIZE][/COLOR][/B] specifies a value of 12 K whereas according to R. Lindzen CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] only accounts for about 5% of the natural 33 degC greenhouse effect. This 1.65 degC is less than a quarter of the value used by IPCC and leads to a doubling sensitivity of 0.3 to 0.5 degC only [B][COLOR=#800000][SIZE=-1][18][/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]What is really true? Is there anybody to present a scientific derivation or a reference where this figure is not copied or just stated from assumptions, but properly calculated?[/FONT]
[/quote][/QUOTE]

Thanks P.B. for that interesting note from Hug.. There is a rebuttal/debate page that I need to read and should be interesting.. MAINLY correct observations -- BUT he has restricted the excitation to just one band of CO2 absorption.. And perhaps I don't know how he extends that to the total CO2 contribution.. But it's worth a read..

Debate page includes a letter from Dr. Roy Spencer -- so that's pretty wide distribution and response..

Thanks again...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

[/B]
If You knew anything about calculus then you`ld also know that there is no way that the temperature can be a linear proportional function of the CO2 IR absorption which is a non linear log function.
If You click on that:
Modtran Infrared Atmospheric Radiation Code

then run the model with CO2 starting @ 250 ppm then repeat to ~350 ppm or more and check the numeric output on the right side then You can see that the delta T increase the best ISDN computer model puts out is a LINEAR 0.1 per 10 ppm CO2 increase....

which is exactly the point "flacaltenn" was making.!!!

There's no delta T on the right side. Sorry, please explain.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

My level of investment in this debate exceeds rationality. I've made enviro topics almost a parallel career.

 

[Trakar]

Not sure what is going on in the geoflop pages, Archer's current and monitored pages are at "Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast" by David Archer though there may be a few reference pages yet to be fully transferred over from geoflop.

If anyone is proposing tinfoil hat speculations, or even possessing of legitimate concerns about any particular adjustments or data treatments by Dr. Archer or any other specific adjustment/correction made by any other field prominent climatologist or climate researcher, please link to the paper that discusses the adjustment/correction and your reasons for suspecting this particular adjustment/correction is unneccesary or improper. I don't know that I can address all of the issues satisfactorily, but I am interested in both real and perceived AGW issues and weaknesses.