Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why are we 33C warmer than we would otherwise be?
#81
(03-16-2014, 11:04 AM)Derek Wrote: Greg, regarding your three quotes / points.
1) Yes, you did. Go back and check the first page of this thread.

No, I did not. You said: "You also seem to swop between Celsius and Kelvin too, to get different results?". Different, Derek. I used Kelvin equivalents twice in the post #5 to express the same temperatures, not different ones: "Considering just a black body is nonsense, because the light side would be at +30°C according to the SB equation but the dark side at -273°C (0°K), since the dark side receives nothing. So, the "black body average" would be -121°C (152°K) and not -18°C."

-273°C = 0°K and -121°C = 152°K as you possibly know.

(03-16-2014, 11:04 AM)Derek Wrote: you get 30C purely by insulating the dark side of the planet.....

No, I did not refer to any insulation of the dark side of the planet.

As I said a few times here, the temperature on the dark side would be below +30°C depending on the rate of cooling (that is in absence of sunshine) and so would be the average. This rate of cooling affects the average, of course. +30°C is only the maximum.

(03-16-2014, 11:11 AM)Derek Wrote: Geological timescale is a different matter Greg. Various proxys and human history can give us a rough answer + or - a fair amount....
What the exact GMT in year 666 was is meaningless.

Never heard of any proxy capable of revealing the "global mean temperature" you referred to.

Still, they present diagrams of the "global mean temperature". Note, not being able to scientifically account for any single year.

This goes for the present times as well, despite all those weather stations. The apparently unsolvable problem is how the discrete local measurements represent the real global average.
Reply
#82
1) Greg you are playing on the fact the Stefan Boltzman equation does not describe a linear relationship. So, when one adds and divides temperatures, and uses Celsius and Kelvin, one can get the desired [linear] answer/s....
[Image: Wm2T.jpg]

2) The quote I gave of your words says different. You are contradicting yourself.

3) You miss my point. Yes, not a single proxy is exact, or 100% reliable. To call them "science" is a stretch, they should be our best guesses at present. Rough guides, to the best of our knowledge, if one prefers. Yes, some metrics and proxys have been so fiddled with they can no longer mean anything reliably. Some proxys, ie, ice cores should not be used at all, because they describe something completely different to what it is they are said to show. ie, Breaking Ice Hockey Sticks - Can Ice Be Trusted?

You say that because they can not describe exactly one year the whole of the rough guide must be thrown in the bin. No, it should be used with appropriate caution and in full knowledge of it's weaknesses / problems, ie error bars.

I note no reply to my posts 51 and 71....
YET, you keep on inferring S/B for a grey body, but say you can not see black body being misapplied to grey body reality......
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#83
An interesting link. Beware, slow download time and HEAVY reading but useful.
All available free in pdf format.

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#84
Nice link, to be filed under "Those who did not question the GH "theory" basis / paradigm."....
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply
#85
(03-18-2014, 10:35 PM)Derek Wrote: Nice link, to be filed under "Those who did not question the GH "theory" basis / paradigm."....

Hmm... herewith the last sentence on page 3 of Chapter 2.

Quote:The studies reviewed here find it is likely
rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations will have little
impact on future climate.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth. - Alan Caruba
Reply
#86
Which means they think the GH effect exists, but CO2 plays a different role than portrayed by the consensus. They question how it works, not that it exists or that it works. This is the other of the two sides of the same GH "theory" believing coin, namely 1) the consensus and 2) the main stream skeptics.
ie, They both believe we are "33C warmer than we would otherwise be"...
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Climate Science Humiliated…Earlier Model Prognoses Of Warmer Winters Now Today’s Laug Sunsettommy 0 1,868 02-22-2015, 07:47 AM
Last Post: Sunsettommy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)