The next time some idiot tells you, "But the real science says....."

[alang1216]

No, the operative question is no matter what they did with their computer models there was ALWAYS warming. That is a computational bias written in to the code. No matter what numbers you plug in the result will always be warming. That makes the models invalid. See how science REALLY works.

Now, feel free to put your tin hat back on.

So what is the answer? Did their computer models ALWAYS showed warming? What happened when they ran them backwards? Did glaciers reappear?

 

[westwall]

No, the operative question is no matter what they did with their computer models there was ALWAYS warming. That is a computational bias written in to the code. No matter what numbers you plug in the result will always be warming. That makes the models invalid. See how science REALLY works.

Now, feel free to put your tin hat back on.

So what is the answer? Did their computer models ALWAYS showed warming? What happened when they ran them backwards? Did glaciers reappear?

Yes, did you not read what I said? No matter WHAT numbers you plug into the GCM's, they ALWAYS show a warming trend. That makes them invalid. Do you not understand simple scientific norms?

 

[ReinyDays]

What warms the planet? Or more accurately what regulates the temperature of the planet? The oceans. The latent heat of the oceans built up by UV radiation penetrating the top 500 meters of the oceans over billions of years is what actually regulates the temperature of the planet. The AGW theory is after the UV has penetrated the atmosphere the back radiation, in the form of Long Wave IR, is split with 50% being redirected back to the ground.

Fine, let us assume that that is true. What does the Long Wave IR do? It will certainly warm the rocks for a little while, but what does it do to water? The answer is nothing. Long Wave IR can't penetrate the skin of water so it can have no effect on the long term build up of heat the way UV radiation can. How do we know this? Go to the desert. Hot during the day, warmish during the evening. Frigidly cold during the night. Unless you are next to the ocean. If you are next to the ocean there is enough water vapor extending inland (for a few miles) to regulate the temperature at night so that it doesn't get too cold.

To simplistic ... there's not a single regulator of the Earth's air temperature ... the oceans are a great moderator, moving everything towards equilibrium ... but there's more important regulators in the climate system ... continent positions for example ... any climatologist who says there's no unknown factors is a liar ...

There's a thread pinned to the top of this forum that has all the information about radiative physics you could possible want ... or need ... the way you used the term "UV radiation" seems like you're not clear about blackbody radiation ... billions of years is just baffling ... AGW conjecture has the entire visible spectrum of light penetrating the atmosphere ... this might surprise you, but rocks and water in sunlight both heat up ... and for exactly the same reasons ... anyway, UV is laughably trivial in regard to temperatures, both with rocks and water ...

Water vapor is the dominant GHG in our atmosphere, by orders of magnitude, and it doesn't increase the temperature of the globe, it prevents the heat from escaping back into space. It acts as a blanket, but not an electric one.

[Emphasis mine]

If the energy doesn't escape into space, then it sure as hell is going to raise the temperature of the plant ... geology doesn't conserve energy? ... how odd ...

It's a felony in atmospheric science to break the laws of thermodynamics ... just saying ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Produce a logical explanation on why I as a PhD scientist, with a long history of publication, is suddenly incapable of understanding a scientific paper.

You have yet to post a link to any scientific paper to back up your claims ... I just assumed you were to afraid to ... make sure you read the conclusions, I will, and too many times such has fully endorsed my claim ... I'm sick of that ...

 

[westwall]

What warms the planet? Or more accurately what regulates the temperature of the planet? The oceans. The latent heat of the oceans built up by UV radiation penetrating the top 500 meters of the oceans over billions of years is what actually regulates the temperature of the planet. The AGW theory is after the UV has penetrated the atmosphere the back radiation, in the form of Long Wave IR, is split with 50% being redirected back to the ground.

Fine, let us assume that that is true. What does the Long Wave IR do? It will certainly warm the rocks for a little while, but what does it do to water? The answer is nothing. Long Wave IR can't penetrate the skin of water so it can have no effect on the long term build up of heat the way UV radiation can. How do we know this? Go to the desert. Hot during the day, warmish during the evening. Frigidly cold during the night. Unless you are next to the ocean. If you are next to the ocean there is enough water vapor extending inland (for a few miles) to regulate the temperature at night so that it doesn't get too cold.

To simplistic ... there's not a single regulator of the Earth's air temperature ... the oceans are a great moderator, moving everything towards equilibrium ... but there's more important regulators in the climate system ... continent positions for example ... any climatologist who says there's no unknown factors is a liar ...

There's a thread pinned to the top of this forum that has all the information about radiative physics you could possible want ... or need ... the way you used the term "UV radiation" seems like you're not clear about blackbody radiation ... billions of years is just baffling ... AGW conjecture has the entire visible spectrum of light penetrating the atmosphere ... this might surprise you, but rocks and water in sunlight both heat up ... and for exactly the same reasons ... anyway, UV is laughably trivial in regard to temperatures, both with rocks and water ...

Water vapor is the dominant GHG in our atmosphere, by orders of magnitude, and it doesn't increase the temperature of the globe, it prevents the heat from escaping back into space. It acts as a blanket, but not an electric one.

[Emphasis mine]

If the energy doesn't escape into space, then it sure as hell is going to raise the temperature of the plant ... geology doesn't conserve energy? ... how odd ...

It's a felony in atmospheric science to break the laws of thermodynamics ... just saying ...

UV light is the only light that can penetrate that deeply into the oceans. It is that energy from the Sun, deposited over billions of years that has heated the oceans.

You mention thermodynamics. Good. Explain how energy striking the Earth can be increased, WITHOUT WORK BEING ADDED.

100 units of energy arrive from the Sun. What mechanism causes that 100 units to become 105?

How do you reconcile that energy increase when the atmosphere isn't actually producing energy?

 

[westwall]

Produce a logical explanation on why I as a PhD scientist, with a long history of publication, is suddenly incapable of understanding a scientific paper.

You have yet to post a link to any scientific paper to back up your claims ... I just assumed you were to afraid to ... make sure you read the conclusions, I will, and too many times such has fully endorsed my claim ... I'm sick of that ...

Nor, will I ever. But explain to me why Feynman, I am sure you know who he was, wouldn't be able to render an opinion on climatology.

 

[ABikerSailor]

What warms the planet? Or more accurately what regulates the temperature of the planet? The oceans. The latent heat of the oceans built up by UV radiation penetrating the top 500 meters of the oceans over billions of years is what actually regulates the temperature of the planet. The AGW theory is after the UV has penetrated the atmosphere the back radiation, in the form of Long Wave IR, is split with 50% being redirected back to the ground.

Fine, let us assume that that is true. What does the Long Wave IR do? It will certainly warm the rocks for a little while, but what does it do to water? The answer is nothing. Long Wave IR can't penetrate the skin of water so it can have no effect on the long term build up of heat the way UV radiation can. How do we know this? Go to the desert. Hot during the day, warmish during the evening. Frigidly cold during the night. Unless you are next to the ocean. If you are next to the ocean there is enough water vapor extending inland (for a few miles) to regulate the temperature at night so that it doesn't get too cold.

To simplistic ... there's not a single regulator of the Earth's air temperature ... the oceans are a great moderator, moving everything towards equilibrium ... but there's more important regulators in the climate system ... continent positions for example ... any climatologist who says there's no unknown factors is a liar ...

There's a thread pinned to the top of this forum that has all the information about radiative physics you could possible want ... or need ... the way you used the term "UV radiation" seems like you're not clear about blackbody radiation ... billions of years is just baffling ... AGW conjecture has the entire visible spectrum of light penetrating the atmosphere ... this might surprise you, but rocks and water in sunlight both heat up ... and for exactly the same reasons ... anyway, UV is laughably trivial in regard to temperatures, both with rocks and water ...

Water vapor is the dominant GHG in our atmosphere, by orders of magnitude, and it doesn't increase the temperature of the globe, it prevents the heat from escaping back into space. It acts as a blanket, but not an electric one.

[Emphasis mine]

If the energy doesn't escape into space, then it sure as hell is going to raise the temperature of the plant ... geology doesn't conserve energy? ... how odd ...

It's a felony in atmospheric science to break the laws of thermodynamics ... just saying ...

UV light is the only light that can penetrate that deeply into the oceans. It is that energy from the Sun, deposited over billions of years that has heated the oceans.

You mention thermodynamics. Good. Explain how energy striking the Earth can be increased, WITHOUT WORK BEING ADDED.

100 units of energy arrive from the Sun. What mechanism causes that 100 units to become 105?

How do you reconcile that energy increase when the atmosphere isn't actually producing energy?

Ever heard of reflected energy? And, did you know that if the reflected energy from the Sun hits the Earth, and gets reflected up, but sent back down by the reflections of the clouds, it can get stronger?

 

[westwall]

What warms the planet? Or more accurately what regulates the temperature of the planet? The oceans. The latent heat of the oceans built up by UV radiation penetrating the top 500 meters of the oceans over billions of years is what actually regulates the temperature of the planet. The AGW theory is after the UV has penetrated the atmosphere the back radiation, in the form of Long Wave IR, is split with 50% being redirected back to the ground.

Fine, let us assume that that is true. What does the Long Wave IR do? It will certainly warm the rocks for a little while, but what does it do to water? The answer is nothing. Long Wave IR can't penetrate the skin of water so it can have no effect on the long term build up of heat the way UV radiation can. How do we know this? Go to the desert. Hot during the day, warmish during the evening. Frigidly cold during the night. Unless you are next to the ocean. If you are next to the ocean there is enough water vapor extending inland (for a few miles) to regulate the temperature at night so that it doesn't get too cold.

To simplistic ... there's not a single regulator of the Earth's air temperature ... the oceans are a great moderator, moving everything towards equilibrium ... but there's more important regulators in the climate system ... continent positions for example ... any climatologist who says there's no unknown factors is a liar ...

There's a thread pinned to the top of this forum that has all the information about radiative physics you could possible want ... or need ... the way you used the term "UV radiation" seems like you're not clear about blackbody radiation ... billions of years is just baffling ... AGW conjecture has the entire visible spectrum of light penetrating the atmosphere ... this might surprise you, but rocks and water in sunlight both heat up ... and for exactly the same reasons ... anyway, UV is laughably trivial in regard to temperatures, both with rocks and water ...

Water vapor is the dominant GHG in our atmosphere, by orders of magnitude, and it doesn't increase the temperature of the globe, it prevents the heat from escaping back into space. It acts as a blanket, but not an electric one.

[Emphasis mine]

If the energy doesn't escape into space, then it sure as hell is going to raise the temperature of the plant ... geology doesn't conserve energy? ... how odd ...

It's a felony in atmospheric science to break the laws of thermodynamics ... just saying ...

UV light is the only light that can penetrate that deeply into the oceans. It is that energy from the Sun, deposited over billions of years that has heated the oceans.

You mention thermodynamics. Good. Explain how energy striking the Earth can be increased, WITHOUT WORK BEING ADDED.

100 units of energy arrive from the Sun. What mechanism causes that 100 units to become 105?

How do you reconcile that energy increase when the atmosphere isn't actually producing energy?

Ever heard of reflected energy? And, did you know that if the reflected energy from the Sun hits the Earth, and gets reflected up, but sent back down by the reflections of the clouds, it can get stronger?

It can huh. How does that work with conservation of energy? Anytime there is a collision there is a loss of energy. There is NEVER an increase.

 

[ReinyDays]

To simplistic ... there's not a single regulator of the Earth's air temperature ... the oceans are a great moderator, moving everything towards equilibrium ... but there's more important regulators in the climate system ... continent positions for example ... any climatologist who says there's no unknown factors is a liar ...

There's a thread pinned to the top of this forum that has all the information about radiative physics you could possible want ... or need ... the way you used the term "UV radiation" seems like you're not clear about blackbody radiation ... billions of years is just baffling ... AGW conjecture has the entire visible spectrum of light penetrating the atmosphere ... this might surprise you, but rocks and water in sunlight both heat up ... and for exactly the same reasons ... anyway, UV is laughably trivial in regard to temperatures, both with rocks and water ...

Water vapor is the dominant GHG in our atmosphere, by orders of magnitude, and it doesn't increase the temperature of the globe, it prevents the heat from escaping back into space. It acts as a blanket, but not an electric one.

[Emphasis mine]

If the energy doesn't escape into space, then it sure as hell is going to raise the temperature of the plant ... geology doesn't conserve energy? ... how odd ...

It's a felony in atmospheric science to break the laws of thermodynamics ... just saying ...

UV light is the only light that can penetrate that deeply into the oceans. It is that energy from the Sun, deposited over billions of years that has heated the oceans.
You mention thermodynamics. Good. Explain how energy striking the Earth can be increased, WITHOUT WORK BEING ADDED.
100 units of energy arrive from the Sun. What mechanism causes that 100 units to become 105?
How do you reconcile that energy increase when the atmosphere isn't actually producing energy?

Answering out of order, taking the simple ones first and then try to figure out what you mean on the others ...

First off, and on average, roughly 30% of the energy striking the Earth is simply reflected back out into space ... albedo ... the remaining energy is absorbed and performs work ... under the equal partition law, if work can be performed with this energy, then it will, proportional to the forces at play ... adding energy (less reflection) requires more work to be performed ... higher temps, more evaporation, more energy re-emitted back into space ...

I hope you mean 100 joules of energy ... because 100 pair-instability supernova units would vaporize everything within 20 lightyears ... any mechanism that itself produces 5 J of energy ...

The Earth receives 1.73 x 10^17 joules of energy every second from the Sun ... and the Earth is close enough to an ideal blackbody that we can say she emits 1.73 x 10^17 joules of energy every second back out into space ... energy in = energy out ... as you remember (I hope), work performed requires the passage of time, at any instance, some of this energy is "trapped" on the surface of Earth ... thus some of this solar energy is kept as temperature on the surface ... Stefen-Boltzmann's Law states that this temperature is proportional to the fourth root of power input ... T^4 = oI [where T=temperature, o = Stefen-Boltzmann constant and I = input flux] ... this is at the surface mind you, and remember that the vast majority of solar energy is at wavelengths where the atmosphere is transparent ... unfortunately, the wavelengths the Earth emits back out into space are not transparent in the atmosphere ... thus more time to perform the work of atmospheric gases absorbing and re-emitting this energy ... thus more time that this energy spends on Earth ... and the higher temperature ... basic astrophysics ...

Theoretically ... the more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the slower the outbound energy flows, and (by SB) temperatures increase ... || ... there's a number of us here on USMB who have been looking for a demonstration of this effect, alas we've come up empty ... it appears no one has even tried ... I invite you to search yourself, you claim that you're quite familiar with scientific literature, perhaps you'll have better luck than the rest of us ...

Back to the nonsense at the top ... most UV is used to disassociate oxygen molecules in the top 1% of the atmosphere ... what little gets through will be disassociating oxygen all the way down before it reaches the Earth's surface ... this tiny bit of energy will be disassociating water molecule once it passed into the oceans ... what few quanta of energy makes it to 500 meters below will, what?, increase temperatures there ... [raises eyebrows] ... well that also increases the water's buoyancy there ... and water with higher buoyancy than it's surrounding environment will rise in the water column ... moving the energy towards the surface ... think 2nd Law of TD ... so, unless you have some magical third force of nature holding the water in place, the energy deposited at 500 meters below the surface will reach the surface and re-radiate/evaporate water/increase temperature ... and within years or decades ... not "billions of years" ... Lord Almighty, it only takes a brief 200 million years to recycle the ocean floor ...

Nor, will I ever. But explain to me why Feynman, I am sure you know who he was, wouldn't be able to render an opinion on climatology.

He's dead ...

=====

My turn:

1] Any climatologist would be able to answer this straight off the top of their head ... Why is there a cusp in the psuedo-adibatic lapse rate? ...

2] What causes cyclonic motion? ... no, it's not fictitious forces ... try again ...

 

[westwall]

To simplistic ... there's not a single regulator of the Earth's air temperature ... the oceans are a great moderator, moving everything towards equilibrium ... but there's more important regulators in the climate system ... continent positions for example ... any climatologist who says there's no unknown factors is a liar ...

There's a thread pinned to the top of this forum that has all the information about radiative physics you could possible want ... or need ... the way you used the term "UV radiation" seems like you're not clear about blackbody radiation ... billions of years is just baffling ... AGW conjecture has the entire visible spectrum of light penetrating the atmosphere ... this might surprise you, but rocks and water in sunlight both heat up ... and for exactly the same reasons ... anyway, UV is laughably trivial in regard to temperatures, both with rocks and water ...

Water vapor is the dominant GHG in our atmosphere, by orders of magnitude, and it doesn't increase the temperature of the globe, it prevents the heat from escaping back into space. It acts as a blanket, but not an electric one.

[Emphasis mine]

If the energy doesn't escape into space, then it sure as hell is going to raise the temperature of the plant ... geology doesn't conserve energy? ... how odd ...

It's a felony in atmospheric science to break the laws of thermodynamics ... just saying ...

UV light is the only light that can penetrate that deeply into the oceans. It is that energy from the Sun, deposited over billions of years that has heated the oceans.
You mention thermodynamics. Good. Explain how energy striking the Earth can be increased, WITHOUT WORK BEING ADDED.
100 units of energy arrive from the Sun. What mechanism causes that 100 units to become 105?
How do you reconcile that energy increase when the atmosphere isn't actually producing energy?

Answering out of order, taking the simple ones first and then try to figure out what you mean on the others ...

First off, and on average, roughly 30% of the energy striking the Earth is simply reflected back out into space ... albedo ... the remaining energy is absorbed and performs work ... under the equal partition law, if work can be performed with this energy, then it will, proportional to the forces at play ... adding energy (less reflection) requires more work to be performed ... higher temps, more evaporation, more energy re-emitted back into space ...

I hope you mean 100 joules of energy ... because 100 pair-instability supernova units would vaporize everything within 20 lightyears ... any mechanism that itself produces 5 J of energy ...

The Earth receives 1.73 x 10^17 joules of energy every second from the Sun ... and the Earth is close enough to an ideal blackbody that we can say she emits 1.73 x 10^17 joules of energy every second back out into space ... energy in = energy out ... as you remember (I hope), work performed requires the passage of time, at any instance, some of this energy is "trapped" on the surface of Earth ... thus some of this solar energy is kept as temperature on the surface ... Stefen-Boltzmann's Law states that this temperature is proportional to the fourth root of power input ... T^4 = oI [where T=temperature, o = Stefen-Boltzmann constant and I = input flux] ... this is at the surface mind you, and remember that the vast majority of solar energy is at wavelengths where the atmosphere is transparent ... unfortunately, the wavelengths the Earth emits back out into space are not transparent in the atmosphere ... thus more time to perform the work of atmospheric gases absorbing and re-emitting this energy ... thus more time that this energy spends on Earth ... and the higher temperature ... basic astrophysics ...

Theoretically ... the more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the slower the outbound energy flows, and (by SB) temperatures increase ... || ... there's a number of us here on USMB who have been looking for a demonstration of this effect, alas we've come up empty ... it appears no one has even tried ... I invite you to search yourself, you claim that you're quite familiar with scientific literature, perhaps you'll have better luck than the rest of us ...

Back to the nonsense at the top ... most UV is used to disassociate oxygen molecules in the top 1% of the atmosphere ... what little gets through will be disassociating oxygen all the way down before it reaches the Earth's surface ... this tiny bit of energy will be disassociating water molecule once it passed into the oceans ... what few quanta of energy makes it to 500 meters below will, what?, increase temperatures there ... [raises eyebrows] ... well that also increases the water's buoyancy there ... and water with higher buoyancy than it's surrounding environment will rise in the water column ... moving the energy towards the surface ... think 2nd Law of TD ... so, unless you have some magical third force of nature holding the water in place, the energy deposited at 500 meters below the surface will reach the surface and re-radiate/evaporate water/increase temperature ... and within years or decades ... not "billions of years" ... Lord Almighty, it only takes a brief 200 million years to recycle the ocean floor ...

Nor, will I ever. But explain to me why Feynman, I am sure you know who he was, wouldn't be able to render an opinion on climatology.

He's dead ...

=====

My turn:

1] Any climatologist would be able to answer this straight off the top of their head ... Why is there a cusp in the psuedo-adibatic lapse rate? ...

2] What causes cyclonic motion? ... no, it's not fictitious forces ... try again ...

Ooooooh, quiz time! It's a function of the isobaric process.

By cyclonic motion I believe you are actually referring to cyclonic rotation, no? Coriolis is the cause, but there are a lot more factors that go into it.


Now, are the results from computer models "data"?

 

[ReinyDays]

Ooooooh, quiz time! It's a function of the isobaric process.

By cyclonic motion I believe you are actually referring to cyclonic rotation, no? Coriolis is the cause, but there are a lot more factors that go into it.

Now, are the results from computer models "data"?

Wrong on both questions ... lapse rate is the change in temperatures with respect to changes in pressure ... i.e. profoundly non-isobaric ... as we move our air parcel up in the atmosphere, pressure drops and under adiobatic conditions, temperatures falls at a very explicit rate ... we define a psuedo-adiobatic process where we only allow energy changes through water's change-in-state ... basic meteorology ... so why a cusp in the psuedo-adiobatic lapse rate? ...

Now I warned you about using fictitious forces, I'm guessing you're clueless to what a fictitious force is, and once again you violate the conservation of energy law ... if you're going to refuse to post links, then you better be able to back up your claims with basic principles ... and it looks like you need to brush up on your basic principles ... especially the difference between inertial and non-inertial frames-of-reference ... sheesh ...

Torque is defined as the cross product of two vectors, neither of which are a fictitious force (like Coriolis) ... here's a hint, think Navier/Stokes equations ...

I'll stick to my answer in post #73:

With this in mind, the answer to your question is that these results are statistical data ... and should be treated with care and all the general reservations any scientist has with anything statistical ... it's a great and useful tool, but the data is profoundly non-empirical ...

Average values are a fact of life ... but not empirical ... there's no one single stock price at $29,665.64 ... the DJIA is statistical data ... obviously, some people think this is useful or it wouldn't be updated every 15 seconds or so ...

 

[westwall]

Ooooooh, quiz time! It's a function of the isobaric process.

By cyclonic motion I believe you are actually referring to cyclonic rotation, no? Coriolis is the cause, but there are a lot more factors that go into it.

Now, are the results from computer models "data"?

Wrong on both questions ... lapse rate is the change in temperatures with respect to changes in pressure ... i.e. profoundly non-isobaric ... as we move our air parcel up in the atmosphere, pressure drops and under adiobatic conditions, temperatures falls at a very explicit rate ... we define a psuedo-adiobatic process where we only allow energy changes through water's change-in-state ... basic meteorology ... so why a cusp in the psuedo-adiobatic lapse rate? ...

Now I warned you about using fictitious forces, I'm guessing you're clueless to what a fictitious force is, and once again you violate the conservation of energy law ... if you're going to refuse to post links, then you better be able to back up your claims with basic principles ... and it looks like you need to brush up on your basic principles ... especially the difference between inertial and non-inertial frames-of-reference ... sheesh ...

Torque is defined as the cross product of two vectors, neither of which are a fictitious force (like Coriolis) ... here's a hint, think Navier/Stokes equations ...

I'll stick to my answer in post #73:

With this in mind, the answer to your question is that these results are statistical data ... and should be treated with care and all the general reservations any scientist has with anything statistical ... it's a great and useful tool, but the data is profoundly non-empirical ...

Average values are a fact of life ... but not empirical ... there's no one single stock price at $29,665.64 ... the DJIA is statistical data ... obviously, some people think this is useful or it wouldn't be updated every 15 seconds or so ...

You specifically mentioned the cusp. The dry adiabatic and wet adiabatic lapse rates are well known, but you specifically asked about the cusp. As far as cyclonic motion/rotation, without a specific reference it's impossible to know exactly what you want. It would be like me asking you to tell me what a 0.08 t/c ratio refers to. In one of my fields it's a well known ratio.

 

[ReinyDays]

You specifically mentioned the cusp. The dry adiabatic and wet adiabatic lapse rates are well known, but you specifically asked about the cusp. As far as cyclonic motion/rotation, without a specific reference it's impossible to know exactly what you want. It would be like me asking you to tell me what a 0.08 t/c ratio refers to. In one of my fields it's a well known ratio.

Yes, the cusp ... where water changes over from condensing (2,100 J/g) to depositing (2,600 J/g) ... this causes an abrupt change in the lapse rate ... one of many thermodynamic complexities ongoing in our atmosphere ...

I sure as hell wouldn't say 0.08 t/c ratio refers to flower fairy farts ... the answer is convection force (cross product) pressure force ... see, the torque vector is pointed the right direction ... no, I doubt any climatologist would know this ... [hand wave] ...

With this in mind, the answer to your question is that these results are statistical data ... and should be treated with care and all the general reservations any scientist has with anything statistical ... it's a great and useful tool, but the data is profoundly non-empirical ...

Do you think this is a fair and balanced assessment of these climate model results? ...

 

[ReinyDays]

The Earth receives 1.73 x 10^17 joules of energy every second from the Sun ...

Brain fart ... should be 1.21 x 10^17 W received by the Sun at the Earth's surface ... my bad ...

 

[mamooth]

I said the AGW theory has been proven false,

But you're just a whiny conspiracy kook, so nobody cares about your cult whining.

You lie because you're a moron who fails at the most basic science.

You lie for money, to prop of your fossil fuel stocks.

You lie out of fanatical devotion to your Stalinist political cult

And you lie out of butthurt, because you hate the liberals for being so much smarter and more ethical than you.

You're a bitter cult laughingstock now, and you'll live out the rest of your life that way.

Now, tell us again about your theory of why the sudden warming is occuring. Oh wait, you won't. Providing a hypothesis is part of the scientific method, and you're allergic to the scientific method. You just screech conspiracy theories, which is _not_ the scientific method.

 

[mamooth]

UV light is the only light that can penetrate that deeply into the oceans. It is that energy from the Sun, deposited over billions of years that has heated the oceans.

Westwall always eventually returns to his "Light can only heat something if it penetrates it deeply, therefore sunlight can't warm a rock!" theory. It's just one of many reaons why he's laughed it.

100 units of energy arrive from the Sun. What mechanism causes that 100 units to become 105?

How do you reconcile that energy increase when the atmosphere isn't actually producing energy?

Westwall's rejection of any greenhouse effect is another reason he's laughed at. While his ignorance spans multiple scientific discipliines, his complete ignorance of atmospheric thermodynamics that makes him really stand out.

 

[jc456]

This is what we get when "science" gets into the business of working rearward from the result that they want to get.

Or told to get or else!

 

[jc456]

I said the AGW theory has been proven false,

But you're just a whiny conspiracy kook, so nobody cares about your cult whining.

You lie because you're a moron who fails at the most basic science.

You lie for money, to prop of your fossil fuel stocks.

You lie out of fanatical devotion to your Stalinist political cult

And you lie out of butthurt, because you hate the liberals for being so much smarter and more ethical than you.

You're a bitter cult laughingstock now, and you'll live out the rest of your life that way.

Now, tell us again about your theory of why the sudden warming is occuring. Oh wait, you won't. Providing a hypothesis is part of the scientific method, and you're allergic to the scientific method. You just screech conspiracy theories, which is _not_ the scientific method.

Naw

 

[jc456]

UV light is the only light that can penetrate that deeply into the oceans. It is that energy from the Sun, deposited over billions of years that has heated the oceans.

Westwall always eventually returns to his "Light can only heat something if it penetrates it deeply, therefore sunlight can't warm a rock!" theory. It's just one of many reaons why he's laughed it.

100 units of energy arrive from the Sun. What mechanism causes that 100 units to become 105?

How do you reconcile that energy increase when the atmosphere isn't actually producing energy?

Westwall's rejection of any greenhouse effect is another reason he's laughed at. While his ignorance spans multiple scientific discipliines, his complete ignorance of atmospheric thermodynamics that makes him really stand out.

Cause you can’t prove greenhouse effect! Science doesn’t allow it

 

[Billy_Bob]

You specifically mentioned the cusp. The dry adiabatic and wet adiabatic lapse rates are well known, but you specifically asked about the cusp. As far as cyclonic motion/rotation, without a specific reference it's impossible to know exactly what you want. It would be like me asking you to tell me what a 0.08 t/c ratio refers to. In one of my fields it's a well known ratio.

Yes, the cusp ... where water changes over from condensing (2,100 J/g) to depositing (2,600 J/g) ... this causes an abrupt change in the lapse rate ... one of many thermodynamic complexities ongoing in our atmosphere ...

I sure as hell wouldn't say 0.08 t/c ratio refers to flower fairy farts ... the answer is convection force (cross product) pressure force ... see, the torque vector is pointed the right direction ... no, I doubt any climatologist would know this ... [hand wave] ...

With this in mind, the answer to your question is that these results are statistical data ... and should be treated with care and all the general reservations any scientist has with anything statistical ... it's a great and useful tool, but the data is profoundly non-empirical ...

Do you think this is a fair and balanced assessment of these climate model results? ...

This happens in the first ten microns of the surface of the oceans.. What is the ENERGY LOSS that occurs in this process? Why is the water just below this colder than the surface? How do you defeat this pressure?...

All questions alarmist have yet to answer...