I went to the soapbox to find lively conversation and found crickets
-
Do you understand what it shows? ERBE shows increasing out going long wave radiation in line with time (and an increase in surface temperatures) Climate models propose that the surface is warmed because CO2 traps long wave radiation resulting in a reduction in out going long wave. ERBE shows climate models are wrong, and that since the sun is the sole energy source, the warming must have come from an equal increase in incoming solar radiation.
-
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
Ah yes, MM said it so it must be the truth.
Hey! That's me and I said no such thinh. He's fatboy.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
This one is. It shows an increase in out going long wave radiation as the surface warmed. This means the warming at the surface is not coming from retained long wave radiation, the mechanism by which the greenhouse works. Energy in = Energy out + Energy stored. The sole energy source is the sun. If Energy out and Energy stored (surface temp) have gone up, then it can only have come from the sun. ( Disclaimer: This doesnt mean that CO2 isnt a GH gas, and doesnt mean mankind has had some effect on temperature)
Munchies_Matt wrote:
The sole energy source is the sun.
So, no warmth from the earths core? No chemical warmth, like from a forestfire? No more volcanoes?
Munchies_Matt wrote:
If Energy out and Energy stored (surface temp) have gone up, then it can only have come from the sun.
Yes, brilliant. You are implying that the sun did not change :) That's correct, it hasn't. What has changed is the blanket around the earth that filters away a part.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
( Disclaimer: This doesnt mean that CO2 isnt a GH gas, and doesnt mean mankind has had some effect on temperature)
It means I'm talking to a sofist, as described by Socrates :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
The sole energy source is the sun.
So, no warmth from the earths core? No chemical warmth, like from a forestfire? No more volcanoes?
Munchies_Matt wrote:
If Energy out and Energy stored (surface temp) have gone up, then it can only have come from the sun.
Yes, brilliant. You are implying that the sun did not change :) That's correct, it hasn't. What has changed is the blanket around the earth that filters away a part.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
( Disclaimer: This doesnt mean that CO2 isnt a GH gas, and doesnt mean mankind has had some effect on temperature)
It means I'm talking to a sofist, as described by Socrates :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Geothermal heat flux is small, about a watt, and constant so it can be ignored.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You are implying that the sun did not change
WTF? You have something weird between your ears. The exact opposite is what I am saying.
-
Geothermal heat flux is small, about a watt, and constant so it can be ignored.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You are implying that the sun did not change
WTF? You have something weird between your ears. The exact opposite is what I am saying.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
WTF? You have something weird between your ears. The exact opposite is what I am saying.
We already know it is not one of the suns' natural cycles :) Anything else? --edit And keep it simple, I just woke up and coffee is not yet done :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
WTF? You have something weird between your ears. The exact opposite is what I am saying.
We already know it is not one of the suns' natural cycles :) Anything else? --edit And keep it simple, I just woke up and coffee is not yet done :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Really? There are two aspects to the sun. TSI and sun spots. TSI is the energy output by the sun. This has increased over the last 100 years be a couple of watts. Sun spot activity has also increased over the last century to a peak about 20 years ago. It has fallen since, but is still much higher than in 1900. Sun spots means solar wind, this affects cosmic rays, which affects clouds, and hence solar energy at the surface. So there is also cosmic ray density in space to consider. But what ERBE shows is that increasing outgoing LWR means surface warming is not due to retained LWR, obviously.
-
Really? There are two aspects to the sun. TSI and sun spots. TSI is the energy output by the sun. This has increased over the last 100 years be a couple of watts. Sun spot activity has also increased over the last century to a peak about 20 years ago. It has fallen since, but is still much higher than in 1900. Sun spots means solar wind, this affects cosmic rays, which affects clouds, and hence solar energy at the surface. So there is also cosmic ray density in space to consider. But what ERBE shows is that increasing outgoing LWR means surface warming is not due to retained LWR, obviously.
-
Why is it amusing to you?
-
Why is it amusing to you?
I am enjoying your frustration, and don't like the sound of crickets. You've been looking for arguments that fit your opinion (aka cherry picking) for quite some time now. Few people will take it seriously, so no real harm will come from these threads. Still I will keep correcting you, just to prevent someone from accidentally believing that your opinion has some merit.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
I am enjoying your frustration, and don't like the sound of crickets. You've been looking for arguments that fit your opinion (aka cherry picking) for quite some time now. Few people will take it seriously, so no real harm will come from these threads. Still I will keep correcting you, just to prevent someone from accidentally believing that your opinion has some merit.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Feel free to correct me. Feel free to offer up any valid counter evidence. You havent done yet so there is always a first time. And no, not frustrated, just enjoying exposing the utter lack of valid counter argument coming from you. :)
-
Feel free to correct me. Feel free to offer up any valid counter evidence. You havent done yet so there is always a first time. And no, not frustrated, just enjoying exposing the utter lack of valid counter argument coming from you. :)
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Feel free to correct me. Feel free to offer up any valid counter evidence. You havent done yet so there is always a first time.
Look up "burden of proof" :)
Munchies_Matt wrote:
And no, not frustrated, just enjoying exposing the utter lack of valid counter argument coming from you. :)
I do not need to counter-argument; I have the data of local weatherstations and can confirm the trend. You otoh have gone from denying GW to denying AGW, and now it is CAGW. Deny all you want :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Feel free to correct me. Feel free to offer up any valid counter evidence. You havent done yet so there is always a first time.
Look up "burden of proof" :)
Munchies_Matt wrote:
And no, not frustrated, just enjoying exposing the utter lack of valid counter argument coming from you. :)
I do not need to counter-argument; I have the data of local weatherstations and can confirm the trend. You otoh have gone from denying GW to denying AGW, and now it is CAGW. Deny all you want :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
and can confirm the trend.
My argument is ERBE shows a warming trend. How is this a counter argument if it agrees? :)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You otoh have gone from denying GW
No I have not.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
AGW
No I have not.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
now it is CAGW
It always has been. Let me lay it out for you again. 1) The earth has warmed 2) man has played a part (97% of scientists think this too. Doram Zimmerman poll). However that warming by man is not great, and is certainly not catastrophic. Is it so hard to understand that there is middle ground? :)
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
and can confirm the trend.
My argument is ERBE shows a warming trend. How is this a counter argument if it agrees? :)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You otoh have gone from denying GW
No I have not.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
AGW
No I have not.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
now it is CAGW
It always has been. Let me lay it out for you again. 1) The earth has warmed 2) man has played a part (97% of scientists think this too. Doram Zimmerman poll). However that warming by man is not great, and is certainly not catastrophic. Is it so hard to understand that there is middle ground? :)
Munchies_Matt wrote:
However that warming by man is not great, and is certainly not catastrophic.
Any change is catastrophic, as already explained in terms that a five-year old can understand. You were saying?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
However that warming by man is not great, and is certainly not catastrophic.
Any change is catastrophic, as already explained in terms that a five-year old can understand. You were saying?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
You did indeed use a five year olds logic to try to make that connection.... Of course not all change is catastrophic. Did the change from the end of the ice age to today result in catastrophe? No. Did the change over the last 100 years do so? No. Would a new ice age be? Yes. Northern Europe sitting under a 2 mile thick ice sheet. That is catastrophic.
-
You did indeed use a five year olds logic to try to make that connection.... Of course not all change is catastrophic. Did the change from the end of the ice age to today result in catastrophe? No. Did the change over the last 100 years do so? No. Would a new ice age be? Yes. Northern Europe sitting under a 2 mile thick ice sheet. That is catastrophic.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Northern Europe sitting under a 2 mile thick ice sheet. That is catastrophic.
Northern Europe having to harvest early due to drought isn't? :laugh:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Northern Europe sitting under a 2 mile thick ice sheet. That is catastrophic.
Northern Europe having to harvest early due to drought isn't? :laugh:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
And they can harvest early because the produce is ripe. Due to warmth. Slam dunk, and he rams it home. In his own goal. Well done! :laugh: :laugh:
-
And they can harvest early because the produce is ripe. Due to warmth. Slam dunk, and he rams it home. In his own goal. Well done! :laugh: :laugh:
Munchies_Matt wrote:
And they can harvest early because the produce is ripe. Due to warmth.
Not ripe, but having some harvest is better than none. Watch the price of potatoes, and see how "beneficial" the warming is :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
However that warming by man is not great, and is certainly not catastrophic.
Any change is catastrophic, as already explained in terms that a five-year old can understand. You were saying?
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Any change is catastrophic
Only to snowflakes. :-D
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: