Tell us again how you’re much better informed than every science institute in the entire world, every govt and every major corporation. There is no one to back you other than the ignorant.
I spent more than 20 years studying the earth's paleoclimates. Their entire conversation is intentionally misleading because they don't discuss the features of the earth which affect climate. No mention whatsoever of the significance of the landmass distribution, the polar region geography, the significance of heat transport to the Arctic and the transition from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet which we currently live in.
Agreed. And then there is the sun's effect on wind which then affects ocean currents which then affects heat transport to the arctic and explains almost everything we see for our current landmass configuration which is what led to the transition of the greenhouse state to the icehouse state which is our current climate.
I've been ragging about convection since I joined this board ... I'm not saying it's much energy, but it's NOT safely ignored ... and higher surface temperatures improve convection's efficiency ... a negative feedback mechanism ...
The IPCC has to ignore this, or they wouldn't have a reason to exist ...
Besides ... higher temperatures --> more water vapor --> more clouds --> more albedo ... do the math ... the IPCC won't ...
So, the entire world of science practiced by every free country in the world is nothing more than sicko religion. ? That’s your story ? And btw, there are NO accredited schools anywhere in a free country where AGW is not recognized. No major religions either.
“You” sickos trying to pretend science and education is on your side is bullshit. There are no examples anywhere in the civilized world of public schools and colleges and universities that think like your warped minds do.
“You” sickos trying to pretend science and education is on your side is bullshit. There are no examples anywhere in the civilized world of public schools and colleges and universities that think like your warped minds do.
“You” sickos trying to pretend science and education is on your side is bullshit. There are no examples anywhere in the civilized world of public schools and colleges and universities that think like your warped minds do.
Hilarious. We don’t listen to ONE GUY in science. We should evaluate thousands of GUYS who are all doing trials and experiments themselves. Deniers will type their little ideas into google, then will hang in like a leach to anyone who agrees with you....it doesn’t work that way.
Yes, that would be true. It is the pure, instantaneous GHG effect of CO2. The actual physical process of how GHG slow the transfer of energy from earth to outer space. The absorption of long wave upward infrared radiation that excites their molecules and cause them to vibrate thereby heating the surrounding atmosphere.
That is the only effect that is certain to occur. It is instantaneous.
Somehow this is hard for me to follow. Some say the earth was 6C cooler during the last ice age. That would mean less than ten ppm CO2. iirc there was some chart around that had it at just under 100pmm. It gets even worse when we look at how the earth was 15C hotter 100M years ago or even 4B years at 3,000C hotter.
Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun's Surprising Role
by Javier Vinos
This post features a chapter from my new book Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role. The book provides a large body of evidence supporting that changes in the poleward transport of heat are one of the main ways in which the planet's climate changes naturally. It also shows that changes in solar activity affect this transport, restoring the Sun as a major cause of global warming. Since climate models do not properly represent heat transport and the IPCC reports completely neglect this process, this new hypothesis will not be easily dismissed. I am sure that over time it will lead to a better understanding of how the climate changes naturally, and hopefully less climate hysteria. Continue reading Solving the Climate Puzzle: The Sun’s Surprising Role
I spent months and monts studying climate matters and I do admire Judith Curry.
But the real huge error in the climate BS is the models. In even the more critical and simpler disease models the very same errors are made.
[Imperial College epidemiologist Neil] Ferguson was behind the disputed research that sparked the mass culling of eleven million sheep and cattle during the 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. He also predicted that up to 150,000 people could die. There were fewer than 200 deaths. . . .
In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would likely die from exposure to BSE (mad cow disease) in beef. In the U.K., there were only 177 deaths from BSE.
In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009.
In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K.
Last March, Ferguson admitted that his Imperial College model of the COVID-19 disease was based on undocumented, 13-year-old computer code that was intended to be used for a feared influenza pandemic, rather than a coronavirus. Ferguson declined to release his original code so other scientists could check his results. He only released a heavily revised set of code last week, after a six-week delay.
Yes ... we can measure the Sun's output to a fairly high degree of accuracy ... 1,362.4184 W/m^2 ... however, we only measure Earth's surface temperature to the nearest whole degree Celsius ... 14 ... haha ... that's a bit of exaggeration ... we're technically using the kelvin scale and that's 287 ... three significant digits ... and that's 1,360 W/m^2 for the same accuracy ...
Indeed, the calculated difference is a tenth of a degree ... so using the 1,360 W/m^2 number is perfectly safe ... and DOES NOT CHANGE ... ever ...
Why scientists call this number the Solar Constant ... because it is indeed constant for atmospheric science purposes ...
Stefan-Boltzmann Equation in the form:
T = (( S x ( 1 - a )) / 4oe)^0.25 [ where T=temperature, S=Solar constant, a=albedo, o=Stefan-Boltzmann constant and e=emissivity ] ...
Using 0.3 for albedo and 1 for emissivity, then:
For S = 1,360 W/m^2, the calculated temperature is 254.54 K
For S = 1,361 W/m^2, the calculated temperature is 254.59 K
For S = 1,370 W/m^2, temperature is 255.00 K (yes, that's exact to a hundredth of a degree)
So you can see that even fairly large changes in solar output effects Earth's surface temperature just a little bit ... not that the Sun's output doesn't effect temperature, it just too little for us to measure using these cheap Walmart thermometers NOAA (and Republicans) are fond of using ...
That's the fucking SUN ... now explain why 120 ppm CO2 is more powerful that a sub-dwarf G2 star ... is common sense completely gone now? ... I showed you my math, now you show me yours ... do these 30,000 universities not have Mathematics Departments or something? ...
The standard deviation measures the precision of a single typical measurement.
It is common experience that the mean of a number of measurements gives a more precise estimation than a single measurement. This experience is quantified by the standard error of the mean.
If each measurement has a standard deviation s and the measurements are all independent, then the mean of the N measurements has a standard deviation s/√N. This quantity is called the standard error of the mean. For a proof of this formula see the tutorial on expectations and estimators .
Thus, for the mean to be ten times more precise than a single measurement, 100 independent measurements need to be taken. Estimating precision
The standard deviation measures the precision of a single typical measurement.
It is common experience that the mean of a number of measurements gives a more precise estimation than a single measurement. This experience is quantified by the standard error of the mean.
If each measurement has a standard deviation s and the measurements are all independent, then the mean of the N measurements has a standard deviation s/√N. This quantity is called the standard error of the mean. For a proof of this formula see the tutorial on expectations and estimators .
Thus, for the mean to be ten times more precise than a single measurement, 100 independent measurements need to be taken. Estimating precision
Somehow this is hard for me to follow. Some say the earth was 6C cooler during the last ice age. That would mean less than ten ppm CO2. iirc there was some chart around that had it at just under 100pmm. It gets even worse when we look at how the earth was 15C hotter 100M years ago or even 4B years at 3,000C hotter.
I'm sorry Robert but contending that averages should not be used is just nonsensical. It's like saying you shouldn't use long division or take square roots and I can only think there was some misunderstanding between you and Lindzen.
Somehow this is hard for me to follow. Some say the earth was 6C cooler during the last ice age. That would mean less than ten ppm CO2. iirc there was some chart around that had it at just under 100pmm. It gets even worse when we look at how the earth was 15C hotter 100M years ago or even 4B years at 3,000C hotter.
Except according to the IPCC none of them were responsible for the warming trend of the past 250 years - even though it began 400 years ago - because they have attributed almost all warming to CO2.