how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[flacaltenn]

Anything that calls itself the "science of doom" has already demonstrated bias. Thus it cannot be taken seriously.

And thus my prediction that denialists would find excuses to handwave away the actual science is shown to be correct.

And no, I don't get tired of being proven right. I only get tired of not being listened to. It's kind of a Cassandra curse I have.

Meanwhile, that link again, for those with integrity. Meaning not the denialists.

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation ? Part One | The Science of Doom

Again, it's difficult reading. I haven't gotten through all 12 parts. Or maybe more now. You have to really dig into it. I take a little bit each day. As Barbie and denialists say, "Math is hard!".

Just for the record.. The guy at Science of Doom is a certified AGW skeptic. He and I agree that there are deniers who need to be corrected. And I've read nearly all of these well done entries.. He's the one that supplied 8 Thermo and Rad. Physics textbook links to the mathematical calculation of "back radiation". And both he and believe that Dr Spencer was unduly lynched by a mob of cultish scientific nihilists who don't even believe the GreenHouse exists. Or that it exists for reasons other than restricting outbound cooling of the earth's surface via restriction of long wave IR radiation...

I LIKE his stuff. And he works harder than most in the blogosphere.. (or on USMB)....

 

[flacaltenn]

1750 to 2005
Long-lived greenhouse gases: 2.6 W/m*2
TSI: Maybe 0.12.

The Greenhouse Effect wins.

Sorry -- that conclusion is not in evidence.. Especially since BOTH the numbers you posted are wrong.. (the 2.6 number is not part of the IPCC chart either brightspark).

Just like Mann had to ignore 40 or 50 proxy studies of world-wide distribution of the MWPeriod to make his "limited to the Northern Hemi" speech --- the IPCC ignores even the BASIC measurements of TSI and DOZENS of intelligiently crafted papers relating TSI to global warming.

For instance. This is the most commonly referenced proxy-current era chart for TSI..

Find me the "maybe 0.12" W/M2 you speak of...

The IPCC lies.. Pure and simple..

And they ignore wonderfully crafted science relating the TSI to various ENERGY STORAGE effects that explain temporal delays between insolation changes and warming/cooling. For instance. Here's ANOTHER VIEW of TSI change.. This time from Equator to North Pole..

No way that is 0.12W/m2 is it? But wait !!! There's more !!! Read the article today and recieve a free revelation on how BADLY the IPCC mangles TSI with your order... Call now.

Solar irradiance modulation of Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) temperature gradients: Empirical evidence for climate variation on multi-decadal timescales

Using thermometer-based air temperature records for the period 1850–2010, we present empirical evidence for a direct relationship between total solar irradiance (TSI) and the Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) surface temperature gradient (EPTG). Modulation of the EPTG by TSI is also shown to exist, in variable ways, for each of the four seasons. Interpretation of the positive relationship between the TSI and EPTG indices suggests that solar-forced changes in the EPTG may represent a hemispheric-scale relaxation response of the system to a reduced Equator-to-Pole temperature gradient, which occurs in response to an increasing gradient of incoming solar insolation.

It is our thesis that the observed relationship between TSI and EPTG represents the large-scale thermal and dynamic relaxation response of the coupled ocean–atmosphere climate system to the externally imposed multi-decadal variation in solar irradiance. Although known changes in TSI are not exceptionally large (on the order of a few tenths of a percent of the TSI over the last 400 years), they are sufficient to constitute an actual change in the total radiant energy added or subtracted to the climate system. Rather than being a mere redistribution of shortwave radiation energy, as in the case of Sun–Earth orbital changes that have been well-studied for the warm interglacials and ice ages of the quaternary (Laskar et al., 1993 and Laskar et al., 2011), the possibility exists for a direct increase or decrease in the total poleward energy transport. This implies that both the oceanic and atmospheric heat transports can simultaneously increase or decrease as a result of variations in TSI.

Our hypothesis is testable by measurement and compilation of the key physical signatures of ocean and atmosphere heat transport. These empirical data can then be compared with the implicit assumptions of the Bjerknes compensation, which assumes the maintenance of a constant total poleward energy transport that then provides an internally self-regulating inverse relation between oceanic and atmospheric heat transport fluxes (Bjerknes, 1964, Shaffrey and Sutton, 2006, Enderton and Marshall, 2009, Rose and Ferreira, and Zelinka and Hartmann, 2012). We discuss the available empirical evidence from actual oceanographic observations and assimilated atmospheric and oceanic circulation, and thermal conditions from climate models, which together suggest the possibility that a simultaneous increase in poleward oceanic and atmospheric heat transport did in fact occur during the most recent warming period since the mid-1970s.

Imagine that.. REAL science can figure out that the Earth's atmospheric temp SHOULD HAVE delayed flows between power stimulus and temperature change.. And that TSI IS LARGE ENOUGH to be ((GASSPP)) a MAJOR factor in the warming since 1750...

Just so that recognize the linear systems part of this paper's statement...

Interpretation of the positive relationship between the TSI and EPTG indices suggests that solar-forced changes in the EPTG may represent a hemispheric-scale relaxation response of the system to a reduced Equator-to-Pole temperature gradient, which occurs in response to an increasing gradient of incoming solar insolation.

Wow man.. Blowz your mind just to hear a REALISTIC EXPECTATION of how a climate works doesn't it? "... a hemispheric-scale RELAXATION RESPONSE of the system to a reduced Eq-toPole temp. gradient..... "

I love theories that make sense. Much better than the entire EARTH CLIMATE SYSTEM responding to CO2 forcing immediately.. LARGE shit tends to have a bit of inertia ya know..

 

[gslack]

Pardon me Mr GSlack, but the following data:

show that the Earth and Sun are NOT in thermal equilibrium, in either direction. If they were, these lines would be flat.

PS: If I were you, I wouldn't attempt to argue thermodynamics with anyone who ever actually took a class on the topic. No... probably shouldn't argue it with anyone at all.

ps: FCT, you might want to have a good look at that second graph before you try badmouthing folks for using sunspot indices as a proxy for TSI.

As long as the Y axis shows Watts and not simply sunspot numbers -- I'm happy.. I MUCH HAPPIER if you show the historical context of the TSInsolation graph tho --- and NOT restrict it to a short period of history that doesn't show the overall increase tho...

BTW: There is no future in arguing with PMZ -- he will ignore anything you post and simply attack like a rapid mammal. I gave him 8 textbook references on EM IR radiation calculations being BIDIRECTIONAL to back up the concept of "back radiation" in the GreenHouse -- he did 10 pages of ad hominem attacks and posted one 4th grade graphic from NASA on thermo.

I spent 10 hours trying to make the connection for him. About 10 pages long --- that "debate" was...
Wouldn't bother me if he tied you up.. Not jealous or anything...

LOL, no the graphic was on the zeroth law.. You should know that, I told you and any self proclaimed scientists would certainly recognize it...

BTW,I am gslack, pmz is a sock...

The entire thing came about because YOU got bent out of shape because I dared question lord spencer.. You and Ian have this crush going on with him and you lose it everytime somebody doubts him..

His latest book is a backpeddling from start to finish. He states it can be claculated mathematically where before he called it proven fact, in fact he made many attempts to prove it using thought experiments ranging from misleading, to downright BS.. Now he says "it can be calculated mathematically".. GImme a break, the mans a save-assand has been a save ass since he started. He supported global cooling in the 70's, the George C marshal institute which he is a board member lobbied for tobacco companies against second hand smoke related legislation, and then he's a devout "backradiation as fact" advocate, now he is save his own ass again, and altering his claim to "calcualated mathematically"

Now please stop bullshitting, and lying about what went on.. You posted from a website, not text books, a website.. The website inaccurately portraid the text book pages, to make a case they were not intended to make..

And I ask you again, where is your proof that just because something can radiate in any and all directions, that will and effect change in it's heat source...

You can dodge that all you wish, but it remains. You dodged it when I first asked, you dodged it ever since.. The fact is you cannot see forrest because the trees are in the way.

All things radiate, that has not been in contention by me at all. That fact does not mean all things radiating can effect change in all things around them, especially things that are warmer.

I tried explaining it to you and when you got to the point your flaws in the theory showed toclearly, you went off stomping your foot.. Well, sorry it upset you but the fact is you cannot ascribe anything a fact that you cannot quantify physically.

 

[westwall]

Your post reminds me of the male owl..... Priceless!

Yours reminds me of someone avoiding debate.

I'm happy to DEBATE. You just spout crap and run when you get called on it. That's not debate silly person.

 

[westwall]

Anything that calls itself the "science of doom" has already demonstrated bias. Thus it cannot be taken seriously.

And thus my prediction that denialists would find excuses to handwave away the actual science is shown to be correct.

And no, I don't get tired of being proven right. I only get tired of not being listened to. It's kind of a Cassandra curse I have.

Meanwhile, that link again, for those with integrity. Meaning not the denialists.

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation ? Part One | The Science of Doom

Again, it's difficult reading. I haven't gotten through all 12 parts. Or maybe more now. You have to really dig into it. I take a little bit each day. As Barbie and denialists say, "Math is hard!".

dup

 

[westwall]

Backradiation causes the entire planet to warm. That's a pretty powerful change agent.

So, if the Sun went out the Earth would be OK because it is the CO2 that actually warms the planet....good to know...

I really wonder if you know how stupid your post is. I really wonder.

Hey you're the one telling us that solar output is tiny in comparison to CO2 when it comes to the warming of the planet.

You see silly person that's THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION!

 

[westwall]

Anything that calls itself the "science of doom" has already demonstrated bias. Thus it cannot be taken seriously.

And thus my prediction that denialists would find excuses to handwave away the actual science is shown to be correct.

And no, I don't get tired of being proven right. I only get tired of not being listened to. It's kind of a Cassandra curse I have.

Meanwhile, that link again, for those with integrity. Meaning not the denialists.

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation ? Part One | The Science of Doom

Again, it's difficult reading. I haven't gotten through all 12 parts. Or maybe more now. You have to really dig into it. I take a little bit each day. As Barbie and denialists say, "Math is hard!".

Just for the record.. The guy at Science of Doom is a certified AGW skeptic. He and I agree that there are deniers who need to be corrected. And I've read nearly all of these well done entries.. He's the one that supplied 8 Thermo and Rad. Physics textbook links to the mathematical calculation of "back radiation". And both he and believe that Dr Spencer was unduly lynched by a mob of cultish scientific nihilists who don't even believe the GreenHouse exists. Or that it exists for reasons other than restricting outbound cooling of the earth's surface via restriction of long wave IR radiation...

I LIKE his stuff. And he works harder than most in the blogosphere.. (or on USMB)....

I will delve into it in that case.

 

[PMZ]

Anything that calls itself the "science of doom" has already demonstrated bias. Thus it cannot be taken seriously.

And thus my prediction that denialists would find excuses to handwave away the actual science is shown to be correct.

And no, I don't get tired of being proven right. I only get tired of not being listened to. It's kind of a Cassandra curse I have.

Meanwhile, that link again, for those with integrity. Meaning not the denialists.

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation ? Part One | The Science of Doom

Again, it's difficult reading. I haven't gotten through all 12 parts. Or maybe more now. You have to really dig into it. I take a little bit each day. As Barbie and denialists say, "Math is hard!".

Just for the record.. The guy at Science of Doom is a certified AGW skeptic. He and I agree that there are deniers who need to be corrected. And I've read nearly all of these well done entries.. He's the one that supplied 8 Thermo and Rad. Physics textbook links to the mathematical calculation of "back radiation". And both he and believe that Dr Spencer was unduly lynched by a mob of cultish scientific nihilists who don't even believe the GreenHouse exists. Or that it exists for reasons other than restricting outbound cooling of the earth's surface via restriction of long wave IR radiation...

I LIKE his stuff. And he works harder than most in the blogosphere.. (or on USMB)....

"The guy at Science of Doom is a certified AGW skeptic."

Why would you say this? As I read the 12 part article his modeling seems to support the IPCC in every way.

 

[PMZ]

So, if the Sun went out the Earth would be OK because it is the CO2 that actually warms the planet....good to know...

I really wonder if you know how stupid your post is. I really wonder.

Hey you're the one telling us that solar output is tiny in comparison to CO2 when it comes to the warming of the planet.

You see silly person that's THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION!

I've never said or implied anything close to that. In the absence of solar heating we'd be a dead asteroid. There would be no life, much less AGW.

 

[gslack]

And thus my prediction that denialists would find excuses to handwave away the actual science is shown to be correct.

And no, I don't get tired of being proven right. I only get tired of not being listened to. It's kind of a Cassandra curse I have.

Meanwhile, that link again, for those with integrity. Meaning not the denialists.

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation ? Part One | The Science of Doom

Again, it's difficult reading. I haven't gotten through all 12 parts. Or maybe more now. You have to really dig into it. I take a little bit each day. As Barbie and denialists say, "Math is hard!".

Just for the record.. The guy at Science of Doom is a certified AGW skeptic. He and I agree that there are deniers who need to be corrected. And I've read nearly all of these well done entries.. He's the one that supplied 8 Thermo and Rad. Physics textbook links to the mathematical calculation of "back radiation". And both he and believe that Dr Spencer was unduly lynched by a mob of cultish scientific nihilists who don't even believe the GreenHouse exists. Or that it exists for reasons other than restricting outbound cooling of the earth's surface via restriction of long wave IR radiation...

I LIKE his stuff. And he works harder than most in the blogosphere.. (or on USMB)....

"The guy at Science of Doom is a certified AGW skeptic."

Why would you say this? As I read the 12 part article his modeling seems to support the IPCC in every way.

LOL, he is a former NOAA/CICS man. Of course he agrees with the data gathering from such sources...He's a moderate warmer, like spencer.. In fact they are both either current or former Satelite data men, and they follow the same tune, and preach the same gospel...

If the theory goes bust, they are not only out oif current employment, but their careers spent to this point will be a joke... They don't want to follow the extremists because they know it couldbe wrong, so they play dig out a little niche for themselves pandering to both sides..

 

[gslack]

And thus my prediction that denialists would find excuses to handwave away the actual science is shown to be correct.

And no, I don't get tired of being proven right. I only get tired of not being listened to. It's kind of a Cassandra curse I have.

Meanwhile, that link again, for those with integrity. Meaning not the denialists.

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation ? Part One | The Science of Doom

Again, it's difficult reading. I haven't gotten through all 12 parts. Or maybe more now. You have to really dig into it. I take a little bit each day. As Barbie and denialists say, "Math is hard!".

Just for the record.. The guy at Science of Doom is a certified AGW skeptic. He and I agree that there are deniers who need to be corrected. And I've read nearly all of these well done entries.. He's the one that supplied 8 Thermo and Rad. Physics textbook links to the mathematical calculation of "back radiation". And both he and believe that Dr Spencer was unduly lynched by a mob of cultish scientific nihilists who don't even believe the GreenHouse exists. Or that it exists for reasons other than restricting outbound cooling of the earth's surface via restriction of long wave IR radiation...

I LIKE his stuff. And he works harder than most in the blogosphere.. (or on USMB)....

I will delve into it in that case.

Another site dedicated to calling backradiation a proven fact, despite the fact it isn't... ANd guess what? He's a former satelite data man.. Big shock...He's pulling a spencer and covering his bets...

 

[PMZ]

1750 to 2005
Long-lived greenhouse gases: 2.6 W/m*2
TSI: Maybe 0.12.

The Greenhouse Effect wins.

Sorry -- that conclusion is not in evidence.. Especially since BOTH the numbers you posted are wrong.. (the 2.6 number is not part of the IPCC chart either brightspark).

Just like Mann had to ignore 40 or 50 proxy studies of world-wide distribution of the MWPeriod to make his "limited to the Northern Hemi" speech --- the IPCC ignores even the BASIC measurements of TSI and DOZENS of intelligiently crafted papers relating TSI to global warming.

For instance. This is the most commonly referenced proxy-current era chart for TSI..

Find me the "maybe 0.12" W/M2 you speak of...

The IPCC lies.. Pure and simple..

And they ignore wonderfully crafted science relating the TSI to various ENERGY STORAGE effects that explain temporal delays between insolation changes and warming/cooling. For instance. Here's ANOTHER VIEW of TSI change.. This time from Equator to North Pole..

No way that is 0.12W/m2 is it? But wait !!! There's more !!! Read the article today and recieve a free revelation on how BADLY the IPCC mangles TSI with your order... Call now.

Solar irradiance modulation of Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) temperature gradients: Empirical evidence for climate variation on multi-decadal timescales

Using thermometer-based air temperature records for the period 1850–2010, we present empirical evidence for a direct relationship between total solar irradiance (TSI) and the Equator-to-Pole (Arctic) surface temperature gradient (EPTG). Modulation of the EPTG by TSI is also shown to exist, in variable ways, for each of the four seasons. Interpretation of the positive relationship between the TSI and EPTG indices suggests that solar-forced changes in the EPTG may represent a hemispheric-scale relaxation response of the system to a reduced Equator-to-Pole temperature gradient, which occurs in response to an increasing gradient of incoming solar insolation.

It is our thesis that the observed relationship between TSI and EPTG represents the large-scale thermal and dynamic relaxation response of the coupled ocean–atmosphere climate system to the externally imposed multi-decadal variation in solar irradiance. Although known changes in TSI are not exceptionally large (on the order of a few tenths of a percent of the TSI over the last 400 years), they are sufficient to constitute an actual change in the total radiant energy added or subtracted to the climate system. Rather than being a mere redistribution of shortwave radiation energy, as in the case of Sun–Earth orbital changes that have been well-studied for the warm interglacials and ice ages of the quaternary (Laskar et al., 1993 and Laskar et al., 2011), the possibility exists for a direct increase or decrease in the total poleward energy transport. This implies that both the oceanic and atmospheric heat transports can simultaneously increase or decrease as a result of variations in TSI.

Our hypothesis is testable by measurement and compilation of the key physical signatures of ocean and atmosphere heat transport. These empirical data can then be compared with the implicit assumptions of the Bjerknes compensation, which assumes the maintenance of a constant total poleward energy transport that then provides an internally self-regulating inverse relation between oceanic and atmospheric heat transport fluxes (Bjerknes, 1964, Shaffrey and Sutton, 2006, Enderton and Marshall, 2009, Rose and Ferreira, and Zelinka and Hartmann, 2012). We discuss the available empirical evidence from actual oceanographic observations and assimilated atmospheric and oceanic circulation, and thermal conditions from climate models, which together suggest the possibility that a simultaneous increase in poleward oceanic and atmospheric heat transport did in fact occur during the most recent warming period since the mid-1970s.

Imagine that.. REAL science can figure out that the Earth's atmospheric temp SHOULD HAVE delayed flows between power stimulus and temperature change.. And that TSI IS LARGE ENOUGH to be ((GASSPP)) a MAJOR factor in the warming since 1750...

Just so that recognize the linear systems part of this paper's statement...

Interpretation of the positive relationship between the TSI and EPTG indices suggests that solar-forced changes in the EPTG may represent a hemispheric-scale relaxation response of the system to a reduced Equator-to-Pole temperature gradient, which occurs in response to an increasing gradient of incoming solar insolation.

Wow man.. Blowz your mind just to hear a REALISTIC EXPECTATION of how a climate works doesn't it? "... a hemispheric-scale RELAXATION RESPONSE of the system to a reduced Eq-toPole temp. gradient..... "

i love theories that make sense. Much better than the entire EARTH CLIMATE SYSTEM responding to CO2 forcing immediately.. LARGE shit tends to have a bit of inertia ya know.

''I love theories that make sense. Much better than the entire EARTH CLIMATE SYSTEM responding to CO2 forcing immediately.. LARGE shit tends to have a bit of inertia ya know''.

I've never heard science say this.

 

[PMZ]

Just for the record.. The guy at Science of Doom is a certified AGW skeptic. He and I agree that there are deniers who need to be corrected. And I've read nearly all of these well done entries.. He's the one that supplied 8 Thermo and Rad. Physics textbook links to the mathematical calculation of "back radiation". And both he and believe that Dr Spencer was unduly lynched by a mob of cultish scientific nihilists who don't even believe the GreenHouse exists. Or that it exists for reasons other than restricting outbound cooling of the earth's surface via restriction of long wave IR radiation...

I LIKE his stuff. And he works harder than most in the blogosphere.. (or on USMB)....

I will delve into it in that case.

Another site dedicated to calling backradiation a proven fact, despite the fact it isn't... ANd guess what? He's a former satelite data man.. Big shock...He's pulling a spencer and covering his bets...

Backradiation is proven to those who understand and have confidence in science.

It cannot be proven by politics. Therefore those who rely on politics to define natural phenomena will always be in the slow class.

 

[gslack]

I will delve into it in that case.

Another site dedicated to calling backradiation a proven fact, despite the fact it isn't... ANd guess what? He's a former satelite data man.. Big shock...He's pulling a spencer and covering his bets...

Backradiation is proven to those who understand and have confidence in science.

It cannot be proven by politics. Therefore those who rely on politics to define natural phenomena will always be in the slow class.

Says the guy who previously thought CO2 an element, who also said the science is settled and then said the science is never settled in the same thread...

Dude you are the forum joke... You have been caught so many times making crap up and calling it science, it's not even surprising anymore.. Damn dude, your rep is ZERO...

How in the hell did you manage to stay below 20 rep all this time, and then drop to zero?

Please, your a trolling moron serving no purpose other than fill forum space with garbage, stop acting like you either know anything about, or care one bit for anything regarding science..

 

[gslack]

1750 to 2005
Long-lived greenhouse gases: 2.6 W/m*2
TSI: Maybe 0.12.

The Greenhouse Effect wins.

Sorry -- that conclusion is not in evidence.. Especially since BOTH the numbers you posted are wrong.. (the 2.6 number is not part of the IPCC chart either brightspark).

Just like Mann had to ignore 40 or 50 proxy studies of world-wide distribution of the MWPeriod to make his "limited to the Northern Hemi" speech --- the IPCC ignores even the BASIC measurements of TSI and DOZENS of intelligiently crafted papers relating TSI to global warming.

For instance. This is the most commonly referenced proxy-current era chart for TSI..

Find me the "maybe 0.12" W/M2 you speak of...

The IPCC lies.. Pure and simple..

And they ignore wonderfully crafted science relating the TSI to various ENERGY STORAGE effects that explain temporal delays between insolation changes and warming/cooling. For instance. Here's ANOTHER VIEW of TSI change.. This time from Equator to North Pole..

No way that is 0.12W/m2 is it? But wait !!! There's more !!! Read the article today and recieve a free revelation on how BADLY the IPCC mangles TSI with your order... Call now.



Imagine that.. REAL science can figure out that the Earth's atmospheric temp SHOULD HAVE delayed flows between power stimulus and temperature change.. And that TSI IS LARGE ENOUGH to be ((GASSPP)) a MAJOR factor in the warming since 1750...

Just so that recognize the linear systems part of this paper's statement...

Interpretation of the positive relationship between the TSI and EPTG indices suggests that solar-forced changes in the EPTG may represent a hemispheric-scale relaxation response of the system to a reduced Equator-to-Pole temperature gradient, which occurs in response to an increasing gradient of incoming solar insolation.

Wow man.. Blowz your mind just to hear a REALISTIC EXPECTATION of how a climate works doesn't it? "... a hemispheric-scale RELAXATION RESPONSE of the system to a reduced Eq-toPole temp. gradient..... "

i love theories that make sense. Much better than the entire EARTH CLIMATE SYSTEM responding to CO2 forcing immediately.. LARGE shit tends to have a bit of inertia ya know.

''I love theories that make sense. Much better than the entire EARTH CLIMATE SYSTEM responding to CO2 forcing immediately.. LARGE shit tends to have a bit of inertia ya know''.

I've never heard science say this.

LOL, "science" isn't done by committee,nor is it done by decree from an omnipotent being, it's about knowledge and truth.. Something you know nothing about.. You've never heard science say anything, and it shows..

 

[PMZ]

Science is done by the community of scientists. Not as you believe, a party of entertainers and politicians.

You demonstrate every day the flaws in your ''thinking''.

 

[PMZ]

Another site dedicated to calling backradiation a proven fact, despite the fact it isn't... ANd guess what? He's a former satelite data man.. Big shock...He's pulling a spencer and covering his bets...

Backradiation is proven to those who understand and have confidence in science.

It cannot be proven by politics. Therefore those who rely on politics to define natural phenomena will always be in the slow class.

Says the guy who previously thought CO2 an element, who also said the science is settled and then said the science is never settled in the same thread...

Dude you are the forum joke... You have been caught so many times making crap up and calling it science, it's not even surprising anymore.. Damn dude, your rep is ZERO...

How in the hell did you manage to stay below 20 rep all this time, and then drop to zero?

Please, your a trolling moron serving no purpose other than fill forum space with garbage, stop acting like you either know anything about, or care one bit for anything regarding science..

I have no interest in your scoring system. Only science and engineering as they relate to progress. Your score there is the lowest there that I've seen since 5th grade. You have reached the top of your aspirations. Complete irrelevance. Your opinion matters to nobody in this conversation.

 

[westwall]

1750 to 2005
Long-lived greenhouse gases: 2.6 W/m*2
TSI: Maybe 0.12.

The Greenhouse Effect wins.

Sorry -- that conclusion is not in evidence.. Especially since BOTH the numbers you posted are wrong.. (the 2.6 number is not part of the IPCC chart either brightspark).

Just like Mann had to ignore 40 or 50 proxy studies of world-wide distribution of the MWPeriod to make his "limited to the Northern Hemi" speech --- the IPCC ignores even the BASIC measurements of TSI and DOZENS of intelligiently crafted papers relating TSI to global warming.

For instance. This is the most commonly referenced proxy-current era chart for TSI..

Find me the "maybe 0.12" W/M2 you speak of...

The IPCC lies.. Pure and simple..

And they ignore wonderfully crafted science relating the TSI to various ENERGY STORAGE effects that explain temporal delays between insolation changes and warming/cooling. For instance. Here's ANOTHER VIEW of TSI change.. This time from Equator to North Pole..

No way that is 0.12W/m2 is it? But wait !!! There's more !!! Read the article today and recieve a free revelation on how BADLY the IPCC mangles TSI with your order... Call now.



Imagine that.. REAL science can figure out that the Earth's atmospheric temp SHOULD HAVE delayed flows between power stimulus and temperature change.. And that TSI IS LARGE ENOUGH to be ((GASSPP)) a MAJOR factor in the warming since 1750...

Just so that recognize the linear systems part of this paper's statement...

Interpretation of the positive relationship between the TSI and EPTG indices suggests that solar-forced changes in the EPTG may represent a hemispheric-scale relaxation response of the system to a reduced Equator-to-Pole temperature gradient, which occurs in response to an increasing gradient of incoming solar insolation.

Wow man.. Blowz your mind just to hear a REALISTIC EXPECTATION of how a climate works doesn't it? "... a hemispheric-scale RELAXATION RESPONSE of the system to a reduced Eq-toPole temp. gradient..... "

i love theories that make sense. Much better than the entire EARTH CLIMATE SYSTEM responding to CO2 forcing immediately.. LARGE shit tends to have a bit of inertia ya know.

''I love theories that make sense. Much better than the entire EARTH CLIMATE SYSTEM responding to CO2 forcing immediately.. LARGE shit tends to have a bit of inertia ya know''.

I've never heard science say this.

Look up the term "geologic time" sometime. Redwood trees live for how many thousands of years? Bristlecone pines? Do you think they live life at the same frenetic pace as a shrew for instance?

Yet another example of your one dimensional, stilted view of the planet and how it operates.

 

[westwall]

I will delve into it in that case.

Another site dedicated to calling backradiation a proven fact, despite the fact it isn't... ANd guess what? He's a former satelite data man.. Big shock...He's pulling a spencer and covering his bets...

Backradiation is proven to those who understand and have confidence in science.

It cannot be proven by politics. Therefore those who rely on politics to define natural phenomena will always be in the slow class.

Actually it isn't. But thanks for playing....

 

[PMZ]

Sorry -- that conclusion is not in evidence.. Especially since BOTH the numbers you posted are wrong.. (the 2.6 number is not part of the IPCC chart either brightspark).

Just like Mann had to ignore 40 or 50 proxy studies of world-wide distribution of the MWPeriod to make his "limited to the Northern Hemi" speech --- the IPCC ignores even the BASIC measurements of TSI and DOZENS of intelligiently crafted papers relating TSI to global warming.

For instance. This is the most commonly referenced proxy-current era chart for TSI..

Find me the "maybe 0.12" W/M2 you speak of...

The IPCC lies.. Pure and simple..

And they ignore wonderfully crafted science relating the TSI to various ENERGY STORAGE effects that explain temporal delays between insolation changes and warming/cooling. For instance. Here's ANOTHER VIEW of TSI change.. This time from Equator to North Pole..

No way that is 0.12W/m2 is it? But wait !!! There's more !!! Read the article today and recieve a free revelation on how BADLY the IPCC mangles TSI with your order... Call now.



Imagine that.. REAL science can figure out that the Earth's atmospheric temp SHOULD HAVE delayed flows between power stimulus and temperature change.. And that TSI IS LARGE ENOUGH to be ((GASSPP)) a MAJOR factor in the warming since 1750...

Just so that recognize the linear systems part of this paper's statement...



Wow man.. Blowz your mind just to hear a REALISTIC EXPECTATION of how a climate works doesn't it? "... a hemispheric-scale RELAXATION RESPONSE of the system to a reduced Eq-toPole temp. gradient..... "

i love theories that make sense. Much better than the entire EARTH CLIMATE SYSTEM responding to CO2 forcing immediately.. LARGE shit tends to have a bit of inertia ya know.

''I love theories that make sense. Much better than the entire EARTH CLIMATE SYSTEM responding to CO2 forcing immediately.. LARGE shit tends to have a bit of inertia ya know''.

I've never heard science say this.

Look up the term "geologic time" sometime. Redwood trees live for how many thousands of years? Bristlecone pines? Do you think they live life at the same frenetic pace as a shrew for instance?

Yet another example of your one dimensional, stilted view of the planet and how it operates.

As bizarre a response as I've seen to any question.