Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #710764
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Analysis of climate models |
| Date | 2018-11-01 10:16 -0500 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <prf5c5$cie$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> |
On 11/1/2018 1:33 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. the effect of water vapor is both more significant and bigger than CO2, this is well known, and Man cannot do anything about it. google " atmospheric absorption bands "or " atmospheric transmission " this shows the absorption bands http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/t0355e/T0355E04.gif this shows the complex process graphiclly; http://www.everythingweather.com/atmospheric-radiation/absorbreflect.gif > >> >> >>> 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. not "easily", how atmospheric gas that absorbes and reradiates is not that well understood, in 3 dimentional layered space, there are much research going on that now. Also the graphs of CO2 concentration vs temperature rise do not directly corrolate as Al Gore showed in his movie. > > There is direct physical causality between ANY IR absorbing > component and average temperature, as such a component > affects Earth-soace radiation balance. in simplified models, in simplified cases. But realize that Light from the sun is partially converted into IR by the ground, which re radiates back into the sky, an IR absorbing gas re radiates in all directions, and the overall effect depends upon its effective thickness, like thickness of insulation. CO2 is 0.041% atmospheric pressure is equivlent to about 30' of water, so the layer of CO2 is about 0.15 inches thick. > > 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. wrong, you skipped daily temperature excrsions, which is at least 5 C near oceans, and up to 30 C DAILY everywhere else. > >> Will one degree end the planet? > > For some species, it will not matter anymore. it dosent matter at all for all species, when you realize what these species withstand over a day, and over a year, NOT some meaningless glowbal average. > > How much temperatrue difference between >> deserts and poles? Total temperature increase 1889-now less than one >> degree. > > Irrelevant parameter. it is relevant, it shows the mistake in relying upon averaging daily and yearly averages which the glowbal modles do.... >> >> >>> 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. he's asking for a URL
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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