- Joined
- Jun 8, 2012
- Messages
- 19,500
- Reaction score
- 5,458
- Location
- Wokingham, England
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Post 319 is a good start for you. Wtf, you think you're a scientist, lol. Thankfully there is sufficient consensus that this is being addressed despite the ignorant masses blundering forward.
Which model is predicting 27.06 C, and for what?the models predict temperatures of ....
300.21 K vs 300.04K .
(for example)
I'm not interested in skewed opinion I want proof. Todays temperatures are well within post glacial natural variability and we have had literally dozens of similar such periods over the last 10,000 years. Todays warming is natural and inconsequential
Ice Cores
You will find detailed NCDC/NOAA scientific references for this graphed data at the foot of the page if you can even be bothered to actually open the link
Please cite where you think I am wrong, I stated it is a theory,more pseudoscientific wtf-ery.
Came across some information about changing the size of the rims.
Seems that many people are putting larger rims on SUVs and the like, and while they may check for body clearance and tire performance when they do, they don't check what effect it has on the load rating of the vehicle. An example presented up sized the rim size, and nearly halved the weight carrying capacity. Perhaps something to be aware of?
Please cite where you think I am wrong, I stated it is a theory,
I should have added the invalidation criteria.
If I am wrong the daytime and nighttime sky IR spectra should have equal amounts
of the CO2 lines at 9.6 and 10.6 um.
If these lines only exists when the CO2 (and hence the nitrogen) is exposed to sunlight,
then I may not be right, but I am not entirely wrong.
Such is the nature of the beast!
Which model is predicting 27.06 C, and for what?
The baseline for GISS for example is 14 °C, with the 1880 starting point at 13.8 °C.
If they saw a 3 °C increase, it would be 16.8 °C or 289.95 K.
I don't know where you are going, but the models predicted warming of .21°C per decade,
For the last 1.4 decades the warming has been around .04 °C per decade.
At least according to the Nature article.
Climate change: The case of the missing heat : Nature News & Comment
If we look apply the same measurement to the GISS, (Through 2012)
From 1998 (14.61 °C) to 2012(14.58 °C) the warming was a negative .021 °C per decade,
Or in scientific terms, cooling!
That was proof, and only starters. Now, I'm not interested in your skewed opinion.
I am not quite sure what in particular you are talking about, but my post was a theoryYour post said that molecular partition functions do not obey Maxwell–Boltzmann statistics
Show the work that supports this ?
The population inversion in the laser is achieved by the following sequence:
Electron impact excites vibrational motion of the nitrogen. Because nitrogen is a homonuclear
molecule, it cannot lose this energy by photon emission,
and its excited vibrational levels are therefore metastable and live for a long time.
Collisional energy transfer between the nitrogen and the carbon dioxide molecule
causes vibrational excitation of the carbon dioxide, with sufficient efficiency to
lead to the desired population inversion necessary for laser operation.
If you use the Kelvin scale where 1% is 2.88 °K (as well as 2.88 °C), but then the 1%smh , the point is they predict TEMPERATURES. and their predicted TEMPERATURES are off by (well less than) 1% {even with your cherry picked reference point}.
smh , the point is they predict TEMPERATURES. and their predicted TEMPERATURES are off by (well less than) 1% {even with your cherry picked reference point}.
Yet another timewaster :roll:
Your inability to comment on the obvious importance of this data in respect of the validity of the whole AGW hypothesis is duly noted :yawn:
I am not quite sure what in particular you are talking about, but my post was a theory
about the observation of diurnal asymmetry.
The vibrational exchange between nitrogen and CO2 is quite a common energy path.
Carbon dioxide laser - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Or you can compare it too absolute zero if you like, but touting that an error is 'less than 1 percent' is meaningless when the whole point of the model is to accurately predict temperatures and trends within that 1 percent. Either a model is useless in doing so, or it is not. If it can't predict trends from the status quo, its useless - regardless of "error".
(PS - I see that longview just made the same point).
What is climate change? | Climate Change Education | Climate Change | Washington State Department of Ecology
Climate Change and Global Warming Introduction
The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.
Why We're Concerned with Climate Change
WNO – WORLD NATURE ORGANIZATION – Climate Change History
Just for starters.
The vibrational energy transfer from nitrogen to CO2 does not violate any laws of Physics.Thank you for giving a link which supports my point and refutes yours. Please revisit Maxwell Boltzmann statistics, and partition functions.
The vibrational energy transfer from nitrogen to CO2 does not violate any laws of Physics.
If you think it does, you had better be prepared to tell a lot of people why their CO2
laser no longer work!
I understand where you think you are going, but the excited nitrogen is in motion,I didn't say it did. Please READ what I wrote.
It's quite clear you're in WAY over your head at this point.
Wait, --- ARE ONE OF YOU finally admitting that it's really an asinine measure to use #s to make completely disingenuous points? Gee, now you know how I feel when I read "1998-- no warming! hiatus".
You see- 2 can play this game, except I can play it in far more ways than most of you can.
I understand where you think you are going, but the excited nitrogen is in motion,
and will have a mean free path before it strikes (something else), some percentage
of the strikes will be CO2, the excited CO2 will then spontaneously decay, throwing off
photons as it does. While it is decaying, the CO2 is incapable of receiving the 15um ground emission.
There is a lot of nitrogen out there for the CO2 to impact with!
Moreover the hiatus trend in warming since is not a predictive mode by skepticsl, its historical data that conflicts with the predictions of GCM's.
What is climate change? | Climate Change Education | Climate Change | Washington State Department of Ecology
Climate Change and Global Warming Introduction
The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.
Why We're Concerned with Climate Change
WNO – WORLD NATURE ORGANIZATION – Climate Change History
Just for starters.
What's disingenuous in pointing out that both the warming since 1998, and the ability of climatologists to predict temperatures to within 1% are both statistically meaningless?Wait, --- ARE ONE OF YOU finally admitting that it's really an asinine measure to use #s to make completely disingenuous points? Gee, now you know how I feel when I read "1998-- no warming! hiatus".
You see- 2 can play this game, except I can play it in far more ways than most of you can.
The energy state of a molecule does in fact decay, in that it transitions from higher to a1) the molecule doesn't "decay",
2) you still don't understand M-B statistics, partition functions, etc. (AKA, you should really stop)
I didn't say it did. Please READ what I wrote.
It's quite clearyou're in WAY over your head at this point.
Wait, --- ARE ONE OF YOU finally admitting that it's really an asinine measure to use #s to make completely disingenuous points? Gee, now you know how I feel when I read "1998-- no warming! hiatus".
You see- 2 can play this game, exceptI can play it in far more ways than most of you can.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?