flacaltenn
Diamond Member
- Jun 9, 2011
- 67,573
- 22,962
I got about 40x. The IPCC says 45x. Okay
You are such a BullShit artist.. That chart is in W/m2.. Do you have an orbiting solar observatory that you're not telling us about? What you got is an act.. Your numbers are dimensionless. You are specious..
And the IPCC is a lying sack of shit.. Still waiting for a reference that says that TSI has only increased by 0.05W/m2 since 1750...
BTW Abraham --- I pondered the comment about what was used in the models being 2x or 4x.. I figured out was meant..
No one can fudge the TSI numbers from the satellite era.. They all have to agree (although ACRIM is still an unsolved outlier). So by stating that increase used in models in 2X or 4X the 1.2W/m2 since Maunder Minimum -- they are stating the uncertainty in the HISTORICAL values determined by proxy back in the 1700s.. Meaning that some studies have values for 1700 lower by those factors. NO ONE is re-interpretrating the common era measurements..
Your comment is meaningless. The magnitudes are still comparable as CO2 accounts for 80% of the variability and TSI for 2% of the variability. That means the CO2 compared to TSI has 80% divided by 2% or 40 times greater effect on the variability in global mean temperature from 1960 through 2013. The IPCC puts it at (2.29 W/m^2)/(0.05 W/m^2) or 45.8 times the effect. And, both of the ratios are dimensionless because they are simply ratios of to numbers with identical dimensions.
So, I get about 40x. The IPCC gets about 45x. That is the same order of magetudes and in perfect agreement given that I did a basic correlation while the IPCC does a more detailed model.
The fact is that you have absolutely nothing useful to add to the discussion which is why you eventually fall to calling people liars.
I completely understand that you are intellectually deficient and unable to distinguish between science and the mindless crap you spout. Calling you a liar would be generous. Rather, you are simply ignorant. You have absolutely no science to back up your bullshit.
Nice clown smoke.. Now go show us ONE REFERENCE that says the "Radiative Forcing of TSI relative to 1750" is just 0.05W/m2.... Garbage never morphs into rubies...
You have what we call call in the biz -- a bad case of Excelitis.. Where the tool exceeds the fool's ability to check the sanity of their assertions based on the crap they enter into Excel..
And Yes -- I am calling the IPCC and their "process" liars.. What of it??
Last edited: