Re: Analysis of climate models

From	benj <benj.fake@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Analysis of climate models
Date	2018-11-01 10:08 -0400
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<prf1d3$5gc$1@gioia.aioe.org> (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> <pre6o8$1qj$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 11/1/2018 2:33 AM, Libor Striz wrote:
> 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.

obviously you are not about to adhere to Ed's original premise of a 
science discussion and are here only to repeat your propaganda.
'
Plonk.

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