Re: Analysis of climate models

From	Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Analysis of climate models
Date	2018-11-01 07:33 +0100
Organization	news.eternal-september.org
Message-ID	<pre6o8$1qj$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<c94395fc-09b1-445a-b53c-1f3ad6412a74@googlegroups.com> <prdahg$1iab$1@gioia.aioe.org> <pre350$jd1$1@dont-email.me> <pre553$lgf$1@gioia.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw

benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
> On 11/1/2018 1:32 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
>> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>> On 10/31/2018 1:22 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>> In response to sergio's comments and my own goal of trying to
>>>> talk about physics in this group, I am starting this thread.
>>>>
>>>> So the goal is to investigate the limits of climate models.
>>>>
>>>> This link has some references maybe for a start
>>>> https://globalchange.mit.edu/publications/peer-reviewed
>>>>
>>>> I'll have to read them from teh library (I do not have
>>>> subscription or school access to any journals.)
>>>>
>>>> Or if you find peer reviewed articles that can be shared
>>>> please post a link in this thread.
>>>>
>>>> Please NO news sources, we are looking for scientific
>>>> publications.
>>>>
>>>> Lets see who is serious about this.
>>>>      Ed
>>>
>>> Sure Ed, how about this one:
>>>
>>> http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Schmidt/attribution_present_GH_effect_2010.pdf
>>>
>>> Lessee. This shows CO2 is a MINOR greenhouse gas with other gasses being
>>> of even less effect. Estimate is that CO2 is really only 15-20% of the
>>> greenhouse effect. Water vapor/clouds are major contributor. Please not
>>> that the Human generated CO2 is a minor portion of that already minor
>>> fraction something like 4% of the 15%. This makes the "anthropogenic"
>>> part of global warming something with some serious proof of the theory
>>> needed.
>>>
>> 20 % is still major component.
>> 1% would be minor.
> 
> And you just made up this dividing line yourself, right?
> more then 50% is major, 15-20% is minor. Water Vapor is major. Co2 is 
> minor.

Wrong. Major components are  component with significant
 contribution, it does not limit itself  to  the components with
 the biggest contribution.

> 
> 
>> This 20% makes about 6 deg C
>>  From the total cca 30 deg C of GH effect.
> 
> And the 30 degrees is imaginary I take it. There is no demonstrated 
> causaltiy between CO2 and average temperature. Proof. Temperature 
> anamoaly 1940-1970 when CO2 went up and climate went DOWN.

No, it can be easily calculated for Earth radiation balance not
 considering GH effect.

There is direct physical causality between ANY IR absorbing
 component and average temperature, as such a component
affects Earth-soace radiation balance.

That "proof" only says that signs of total differential  and
 partial derivative need not to agree.

When your salary increase, it does not mean your savings
 accumulation rate increase as well. It may as well decrease for
 some periods.

> 
>> The 0.01 % increase if CO2 makes about 1.5 Deg C difference of
>>   global average temperature difference.
> 
> Can you or any organism tell the difference between 1 degree?

Of course they can.
Subtropical species spread to regions not seen there before,
the same for spreading species toward higher altitudes.

> Will one degree end the planet?

For some species, it will not matter anymore.

 How much temperatrue difference between 
> deserts and poles? Total temperature increase 1889-now less than one 
> degree.

Irrelevant parameter.
> 
> 
>> 0.01% CO2 is equivalent of cca 20 tons of carbon per a person, cca
>>   130 kg per person And year during 150 years. Let consider lower
>>   AVG people count during the era, so let say 365 kg per person and
>>   year, 1 kg per person and day.
> 
> Which is what part of the CO2 cycle?

Reformulated the question for better sense. I just pointed out 4%
 of human contribution is unjustified.
> 
>> Just by breathing, people population
>> contribution is comparable to total CO2 increase,  not counting
>>   burning fossil fuels and forests, which is much more.
> 
> So your theory is that all of the INCREASE in CO2 levels is due entirely 

Since when are simple calculations a theory ?

> and only because of man/animal/fuel generated CO2.

You imply this, not me, nothing like that was said. 

 Got any peer reviewed 
> papers that support that theory? We are not discussing journalist 
> non-science here.

Since when are simple calculations a theory ? Learn more about
 scientific theories and stop writing until you do.


-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Thread

Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 10:22 -0700
  UsedCar salesman cite facts. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-10-31 12:37 -0700
  Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-31 14:49 -0500
    Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 13:00 -0700
  Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 18:32 -0400
    Re: Analysis of climate models Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-01 06:32 +0100
      Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 02:06 -0400
        Re: Analysis of climate models Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-01 07:33 +0100
          Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 10:08 -0400
            Re: Analysis of climate models Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-01 15:33 +0100
            Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 13:22 -0700
              Re: Analysis of climate models Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-14 00:28 -0500
                Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 16:47 -0800
          Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-01 10:16 -0500
    Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 13:16 -0700
    Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 16:02 -0700
      Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-02 20:19 -0500
      Re: Analysis of climate models James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 12:56 -0800
        Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 08:39 -0800
          Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-05 12:59 -0600
          Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 14:45 -0500
            Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 13:07 -0800
          Re: Analysis of climate models Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 12:34 -0800
            Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 13:09 -0800
              Re: Analysis of climate models Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-11-16 09:50 -0800
        Re: Analysis of climate models pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-11-05 19:17 -0800
          Re: Analysis of climate models Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 07:16 -0800
  Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-01 21:23 +0000
  Re: Analysis of climate models Boris Mohar <borism_void_@sympatico.ca> - 2018-11-02 05:21 -0400
    Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 08:04 -0800
  Re: Analysis of climate models Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-02 08:31 -0400
    Re: Analysis of climate models Dan Riley <dan131riley@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 17:15 -0400
      Re: Analysis of climate models Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 12:40 -0800
        Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 13:13 -0800
          Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-18 17:22 -0600
            Re: Analysis of climate models James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-18 17:48 -0800
            Re: Analysis of climate models Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-19 05:05 +0100
              Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-18 22:46 -0600
                Re: Analysis of climate models Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-11-19 06:59 +0100
                Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 07:42 -0800
                Re: Analysis of climate models James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 08:58 -0800
                Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 19:17 -0500
                Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 12:22 -0500
                Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-20 21:02 -0600
            Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 11:01 -0500
              Re: Analysis of climate models Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 12:58 -0800
                Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 08:10 -0800
                Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 12:04 -0500
                Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-20 22:02 -0600
      Re: Analysis of climate models Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-19 07:00 -0500
        Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 08:00 -0800
          Re: Analysis of climate models Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-20 21:28 -0500
            Re: Analysis of climate models James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-11-21 10:38 -0800
            Re: Analysis of climate models Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-25 00:53 -0500
    Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 08:21 -0800
  Re: Analysis of climate models Dan Riley <dan131riley@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 17:08 -0400
    Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 08:23 -0800
      Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-05 13:00 -0600
        Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-05 13:04 -0600
          Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 14:51 -0500
            Re: Analysis of climate models Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-11-05 13:59 -0600
  Re: Analysis of climate models Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-11-19 07:27 -0500
    Re: Analysis of climate models Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 08:06 -0800
      Re: Analysis of climate models benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 11:59 -0500

csiph-web