Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Who do you believe on global warming?


  • Please log in to reply
217 replies to this topic

#196    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,299 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 07 March 2012 - 09:54 PM

View Postliteness, on 07 March 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

Again, entirely my fault, I take full responsibility for the misunderstanding.
My apologizes. I am an ass-hat.

Please, give me your 2cents on the other link.

Its OK, maybe I should have let it go. I'll be back as soon as I have some time to give you a reasoned assessment.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#197    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,299 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 07 March 2012 - 10:16 PM

View Postliteness, on 07 March 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

Again, entirely my fault, I take full responsibility for the misunderstanding.
My apologizes. I am an ass-hat.

Please, give me your 2cents on the other link.

We need more data as the hottest year of that graph was not 2007 and as we see that temperature was on a decline and the cosmic rays increasing.. Makes me wonder what they were hiding there. Besides they claim that the lowest temperature of the decade was in 2005, which is also not true, that was 2008:

Posted Image

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#198    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 08 March 2012 - 12:28 AM

Quote

they claim that the lowest temperature of the decade was in 2005, which is also not true, that was 2008
I'm not following your discussion, but where did you put your thermometer?
pole or equator?
land or sea?
northern hemisphere or southern hemisphere?
low altitude or high altitude?


#199    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 March 2012 - 09:04 AM

View Postquestionmark, on 07 March 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

Keeping burping up the same crap does not change the facts. If we have a greenhouse gas of which the atmosphere contains less than 400 ppm (you seem to have a problem converting percent into ppm as I already posted above the percentile of 0.0360%, having problems in both math and physics is not a good omen for your future as meteorologist, you may not be able to pay back your student loan), and that gas is responsible for 3 to 12 degrees of heat retention in the atmosphere, it is quite normal that a few ppm increase or decrease would cause a large difference. 4ppm of the atmosphere is one percent of the total carbon dioxide. 8 ppm atm more/less CO2 could account for your +- 0.5, 16 ppm for your +- 1 degree.

This post is completely nonsens. So many errors dont know where to start.

Its not 0.0360%, its 0.0392% thats your first mistake but let us just say its 0.0360%.
You second mistake would be to believe that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 back in the little ice age was 0.0360% or 360 ppmv(uhh yes i can convert ppmv into percentages, not that hard). Your third mistake would be your caculations, a decrease of 16 ppmv would not make temperatures drop 1 degree. Again your calculations show you dont know what climate sensitivity is.

But let us just say you are correct. A decrease in 16 ppmv would make temperatures drop about 1 degree. So pre-industrial level of CO2 was around 290 ppmv, now its 390 ppmv. So if i use your form of caculation Earth has warmed 6.25 degress since pre-industrial times. If that* was correct you wound't be sitting here.

Questionmark as i said, you should have studied what climate sensitivity was before posting your post.

View Postquestionmark, on 07 March 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

And sorry, I don't copy and paste without leaving a reference. And if I leave a reference it is because I am not talking about my opinion but somebody's research which I certainly will not put here as my opinion.

Either you retract this statement or I'll show how many times you have copy pasted without references.

* - edit

Edited by BFB, 08 March 2012 - 09:40 AM.

"Its not true, before my brain says so" - BFB

#200    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 March 2012 - 09:11 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 07 March 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

you would need to flesh those points out for me, I had assumed you were talking about Dessler since that is the only published response to LC11 and Spencer 2011 I am aware of. Since Spencer is in the process of publishing his response to Dessler, I can't comment on what I'm not aware of.

Yes correct, it is Dessler 2011 i'm referring to. He pretty much outline the problems, have you read it?



"Its not true, before my brain says so" - BFB

#201    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 08 March 2012 - 10:56 AM

View PostBFB, on 07 March 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

Interesting read.

But the only point Spencer addressed was the ocean heat transport to cloud TOA flux change ratio.

What about the others?
As I understand it, he is claiming Dessler doesn't understand his paper and is misrepresenting it, and is currently in the middle of publishing his formal and wider response to Dessler. that's not just a difference in opinion, that's a big issue, and one of them is going to end up looking stupid.

"I will be revealing some of the evidence we will be submitting to Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) in response to Desslerís paper claiming to refute our view of the forcing role of clouds in the climate system. To whet your appetite..."
http://www.drroyspen...keeps-mounting/

so he's not revealing everything in his immediate response.

"I just wanted to put this evidence out there for people to see and understand in advance. It will be indeed part of our response to Dessler 2011, but Danny Braswell and I have so many things to say about that paper, itís going to take time to address all of the ways in which (we think) Dessler is wrong, misused our model, and misrepresented our position."
http://wattsupwithth...cloud-feedback/

so the points you raise are by no means accepted points of facts, just opinions that are currently being strongly contested.

Quote

Yes correct, it is Dessler 2011 i'm referring to. He pretty much outline the problems, have you read it?
I did read through Dessler and followed the analyses last year, I don't have time now, but I would need to look again to refresh myself. At the time I was not convinced Dessler had anything significant.


#202    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 08 March 2012 - 11:37 AM

View Postquestionmark, on 07 March 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

Keeping burping up the same crap does not change the facts. If we have a greenhouse gas of which the atmosphere contains less than 400 ppm (you seem to have a problem converting percent into ppm as I already posted above the percentile of 0.0360%, having problems in both math and physics is not a good omen for your future as meteorologist, you may not be able to pay back your student loan), and that gas is responsible for 3 to 12 degrees of heat retention in the atmosphere, it is quite normal that a few ppm increase or decrease would cause a large difference. 4ppm of the atmosphere is one percent of the total carbon dioxide. 8 ppm atm more/less CO2 could account for your +- 0.5, 16 ppm for your +- 1 degree.
not sure I follow your maths as even correct, but you seem to be assuming there is a linear increase of temperature with a linear increase in co2 which is not the case. a doubling of co2 is required to produce the same quantity of warming as the last quantity of warming, so the effects of linearly increasing co2 become progressively smaller. the chart below (the amount of bending in the line is disputed) looks something like this:
Posted Image
as you increase the co2 from zero on the x axis, the temperature responds at an ever decreasing response to the same quantity of co2 increase. rapidly at first, then slowing down. you seem to be suggesting that increasing the co2 by a few ppm has the same effect as the first few ppm which it doesn't. This is why the debate is about feedbacks. the alarmists need extra feedback to makes things look scary and those feedbacks are not found in the data.

Edited by Little Fish, 08 March 2012 - 11:51 AM.


#203    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,299 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 08 March 2012 - 12:10 PM

View PostBFB, on 08 March 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:

This post is completely nonsens. So many errors dont know where to start.

Its not 0.0360%, its 0.0392% thats your first mistake but let us just say its 0.0360%.
You second mistake would be to believe that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 back in the little ice age was 0.0360% or 360 ppmv(uhh yes i can convert ppmv into percentages, not that hard). Your third mistake would be your caculations, a decrease of 16 ppmv would not make temperatures drop 1 degree. Again your calculations show you dont know what climate sensitivity is.

But let us just say you are correct. A decrease in 16 ppmv would make temperatures drop about 1 degree. So pre-industrial level of CO2 was around 290 ppmv, now its 390 ppmv. So if i use your form of caculation Earth has warmed 6.25 degress since pre-industrial times. If that* was correct you wound't be sitting here.

Questionmark as i said, you should have studied what climate sensitivity was before posting your post.



Either you retract this statement or I'll show how many times you have copy pasted without references.

* - edit

Right, and because there are no glaciers melting, the north pole not shrunken there is no heat absorption beyond the normal on this planet.

Good one, thanks for pointing it out.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#204    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 08 March 2012 - 12:36 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 08 March 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

Right, and because there are no glaciers melting, the north pole not shrunken there is no heat absorption beyond the normal on this planet.

Good one, thanks for pointing it out.
that's right, the alleged warming is within natural variabilty.


#205    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,299 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 08 March 2012 - 12:42 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 08 March 2012 - 12:36 PM, said:

that's right, the alleged warming is within natural variabilty.

Right, so it took between 1250 and 1450 to reglaciate Greenland and now it has lost 1/3 of the ice since 1970? Good one man, very good one. Nothing like a laugh in the morning.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#206    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 March 2012 - 12:47 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 08 March 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

As I understand it, he is claiming Dessler doesn't understand his paper and is misrepresenting it, and is currently in the middle of publishing his formal and wider response to Dessler. that's not just a difference in opinion, that's a big issue, and one of them is going to end up looking stupid.

"I will be revealing some of the evidence we will be submitting to Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) in response to Desslerís paper claiming to refute our view of the forcing role of clouds in the climate system. To whet your appetite..."
http://www.drroyspen...keeps-mounting/

so he's not revealing everything in his immediate response.

"I just wanted to put this evidence out there for people to see and understand in advance. It will be indeed part of our response to Dessler 2011, but Danny Braswell and I have so many things to say about that paper, itís going to take time to address all of the ways in which (we think) Dessler is wrong, misused our model, and misrepresented our position."
http://wattsupwithth...cloud-feedback/

so the points you raise are by no means accepted points of facts, just opinions that are currently being strongly contested.


I did read through Dessler and followed the analyses last year, I don't have time now, but I would need to look again to refresh myself. At the time I was not convinced Dessler had anything significant.

I must be misunderstanding S&B and L&C aswell then. So S6B and L6C aren't saying that ocean warming cause ocean warming?

I'll have to wait for Spencer's rebuttal then to understand Spencer and Lindzen papers.

"Its not true, before my brain says so" - BFB

#207    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 March 2012 - 12:54 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 08 March 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

Right, and because there are no glaciers melting, the north pole not shrunken there is no heat absorption beyond the normal on this planet.

Good one, thanks for pointing it out.

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

Furiously sleep ideas green colorless.

Does that make sense?

"Its not true, before my brain says so" - BFB

#208    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,299 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 08 March 2012 - 12:58 PM

View PostBFB, on 08 March 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

Furiously sleep ideas green colorless.

Does that make sense?

No, as most of your "sensitiveness" carousel. But keep on.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#209    BFB

BFB

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,308 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 March 2012 - 01:07 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 08 March 2012 - 12:58 PM, said:

No, as most of your "sensitiveness" carousel. But keep on.

I know climate science is hard to understand, especially when you dont know what climate sensitivity is.

I'll try again.

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

Furiously sleep ideas green colorless

Try to figure it out. When you got it, you will know why i dont take your posts seriously.

Edited by BFB, 08 March 2012 - 01:08 PM.

"Its not true, before my brain says so" - BFB

#210    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,299 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 08 March 2012 - 01:11 PM

View PostBFB, on 08 March 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

I know climate science is hard to understand, especially when you dont know what climate sensitivity is.

I'll try again.

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.

Furiously sleep ideas green colorless

Try to figure it out. When you got it, you will know why i dont take your posts seriously.

Are you going to keep up the BS instead of showing any demonstrable science? Because I believe the weather channel still is in need of an intermission clown.... and that seems to be your future.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users