Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
smallpdf.com
What it needs is an high-end OCR, Each page in the pdf is a single image.Convert PDF to Word for free | Smallpdf.com
Convert a PDF to Word online for free. Our converter turns PDFs into editable Word docs in seconds, without losing quality.
Science denier!!!Perhaps I missed it but I didn't see a link to your Manabe and Strickler 1964 paper. I found it myself and it looks to be an impressive piece of work (https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6401.pdf) but it is all a scan of a printed document and thus readable but not searchable and only to be copied by hand. Can you perhaps point out (page and paragraph) where you came across some of the specific points you have made from it?
Do you not know how to read? Page 362.This is from your 1964 study? You claim to be knowledgeable in thermo basics. What do you mean by "56% below"? In fact, what do you actually mean by "greenhouse gas effect value"?
Which models? And if by an increase of 280 ppm you mean a doubling of the pre-industrial level, I know of no one who would characterize doubling as "incrementally small". And I presume that the term "greenhouse gas effect value" is a deltaT, the change in equilibrium temperature brought about by the greenhouse effect acting on the... what, 1750? 1850? 1950? 1964? levels? And if "gas effect value" is centigrade degrees, I don't understand what you intend to "trap" it with. And, again, what do you intend with "450%"?
Hard to say when I can't follow your argument. Too many undefined terms. Please try again.
I see you as the denier. But more importantly I see you as dishonest. I think the kindest thing I can say is that I hope you reach rock bottom as soon as possible so you can begin the climb out of the hole you dug for yourself.Better yet, ignore denier trolls and look for up to date papers like any intelligent, unbiased researcher normally would.
A New Radiative Transfer Method for Solar Radiation in a Vertically Internally Inhomogeneous Medium
Abstract The problem of solar spectral radiation is considered in a layer-based model, with scattering and absorption parallel to the plane for each medium (cloud, ocean, or aerosol layer) and optical properties assumed to be vertically inhomogeneous. A new radiative transfer (RT) method is...journals.ametsoc.org
I couldn't have simplified it anymore than I did. Real world data shows GHG do not trap their full theoretical heat at the surface of the planet because convective currents transport the heat away from the surface.Hard to say when I can't follow your argument.
I didn't ask you to simplify it, but you couldn't resist, could you.I couldn't have simplified it anymore than I did. Real world data shows GHG do not trap their full theoretical heat at the surface of the planet because convective currents transport the heat away from the surface.
I'm using real world data to dispute ridiculously flawed computer models. Don't be such a science cuck.I didn't ask you to simplify it, but you couldn't resist, could you.
Are you or are you not (or "are they or are they not") comparing SB equation work to the real world?
Do you have any plans to ever answer any of the other questions I've made in regards to your statements?
No you're not. You're presenting numbers from someone else without giving them credit.I'm using real world data to dispute ridiculously flawed computer models. Don't be such a science cuck.
Page 362 of what?Do you not know how to read? Page 362.
Theoretical GHG effects based upon physics are the same no matter who does the calculations. It's math. Do you get different answers when you do math?No you're not. You're presenting numbers from someone else without giving them credit.
Page 362 of what?
You live in a very simple world, don't you. And are you now claiming that YOU did the calculations?Theoretical GHG effects based upon physics are the same no matter who does the calculations. It's math. Do you get different answers when you do math?
The paper I downloaded was 25 pages.The paper you supposed downloaded and asked what page it was on.
Yep, ding trudged past the abstract, sailed through the massive "CONTENTS" section, {<-- all on p.361} sped through the "1. Introduction," then began reading the meat, "2. Thermal Equilibrium;" then, after catching his breath for a few minutes, declared, "Hey, I must now be a climate expert!"You live in a very simple world, don't you. And are you now claiming that YOU did the calculations?
The paper I downloaded was 25 pages.
I am unable to open your jpgThis seems so quaint now.
You found it from the citation I provided, right?You live in a very simple world, don't you. And are you now claiming that YOU did the calculations?
The paper I downloaded was 25 pages.
Thermal Equilibrium of the Planet with a Convective Adjustment
Manabe and Strickler, December 1963.
And I've gone back to post #2501 and find NO links in any post of yours.
Bro, I'm not a science cuck like you.Yep, ding trudged past the abstract, sailed through the massive "CONTENTS" section, {<-- all on p.361} sped through the "1. Introduction," then began reading the meat, "2. Thermal Equilibrium;" then, after catching his breath for a few minutes, declared, "Hey, I must now be a climate expert!"
What citation was that?You found it from the citation I provided, right?
You are a moron.What citation was that?
Are you familiar with the work of Manabe and Strickler (1964)? And what they calculated the theoretical surface temperature of the earth should be based upon the GHG effect of the atmosphere?
Manabe and Strickler (1964) calculated the global-average strength of the “greenhouse effect” on surface temperatures assuming all energy transfers were radiative (no weather processes), based upon the theory of how infrared energy courses through the atmosphere. They found that the surface of the Earth would average a whopping 75 deg. C warmer than if there was no greenhouse effect. But in reality, the surface of the Earth averages about 33 deg. C warmer, not 75 deg. C warmer than a no-greenhouse Earth. That’s because convective air currents (which create weather) carry excess heat away from the surface, cooling it well below its full greenhouse effect value represented by their imagined “pure radiative energy equilibrium” assumption.
This is a serious question. Are you experiencing the onset of dementia?What citation was that?
