Notices
Politics, Religion & Controversy Politics | Religion | Controversy (Non-Corvette)

Is 0.01 greater than 0.9?

 
Old 07-12-2019, 01:47 PM
  #21  
jasper711
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Jul 2004
Location: Pacific N.W. Warshington
Posts: 14,775
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

The hot core of the earth represents about 130 million times the thermal mass of earths atmosphere.

If energy were transferring from the core to the atmosphere, a one degree rise in atmospheric temperature could occur with a corresponding one-130-millionth of a degree drop to the core temperature.


Until someone can prove this is not happening (and they cannot), keep your money in your own wallet.

Last edited by jasper711; 07-12-2019 at 01:48 PM.
jasper711 is offline  
Old 07-12-2019, 01:56 PM
  #22  
BenThere
CF Senior Member
 
BenThere's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2008
Location: Chandler, AZ It's a Dry Heat.
Posts: 16,508
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Originally Posted by 63 340HP View Post
They make you search for the pdf download (it's an easy to read 6 pages):

https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.00165




It indicates that the atmospheric climate change influence is driven by low altitude humidity and atmospheric dimming, not CO2.





The report does not discount external solar and cosmic heat inputs, nor does it discount internal cyclical ocean and atmospheric heat capacitance and enthalpy influences. It only resolves the CO2 influence to be corrected as a fraction of the IPCC AR5 estimates.

It's another blow to the settled science believers.
Yeah, thanks, I found it. It attributes low cloud cover for the temperature change/anomalies and demonstrates the concentration of CO2 is not nearly great enough to contribute hardly at all to the changes. At least, that's my amateur take away. Be interesting to see the (peer) reviews if there are any.
BenThere is offline  
Old 07-12-2019, 02:04 PM
  #23  
CRUSHAH
CF Senior Member
 
CRUSHAH's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2017
Posts: 693
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Default

It's a hard scientific fact that the sun in large part controls the weather on earth.
We also know that the political Left uses "Models" to justify their findings...NOT science.
They have admitted to this fact many times. This is why they are always wrong, and WILL
always be wrong. But don't think that they don't know this. Fear is the most
effective tool of the ruling class. The same fear that the Left uses to cause many to think that world
is going to end, is the same fear that the Right uses to think that their is an enemy around
every corner and under their beds....the same fear that causes them to back the MSM's
hunger for war.

AOC and many Leftist in the past has used
flooding to substantiate their claims of global warming,
but what no one on the Right in media says, is that the flooding is due to poor infrastructure.
Even in Midland TX (Oil country), they don't spend money on drainage systems.
Another reason for flooding is you have to think about how much concrete is laid
down every year in addition to poor or no added drainage systems. More concrete also
means that more heat would be reflected back up into the atmosphere,
instead of being better absorbed by grass or dirt.

Btw, as we all know, earth used to be thousands of degrees,
what in the hell are they complaining about lol.
CRUSHAH is offline  
Old 07-12-2019, 04:24 PM
  #24  
virtue4u
CF Senior Member
 
virtue4u's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2000
Posts: 60,457
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 1%r View Post
more like trillions

The Dems cannot point to any proof that the trillions wasted changed the climate one iota.
All that money could have been used to help clean up the oceans or save forested areas.
While the Dem MMGW nuts are chasing a CO2 unicorn, we have real environmental issues.
3D will explain.

Last edited by virtue4u; 07-12-2019 at 04:25 PM.
virtue4u is offline  
Old 07-13-2019, 12:36 PM
  #25  
Gordon Shumway
CF Senior Member
 
Gordon Shumway's Avatar
 
Member Since: Feb 2008
Location: Ocala FL
Posts: 22,155
Received 9 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 65Z01 View Post
It's a religious thing, rational sheeple wouldn't understand so shouldn't challenge the doctrine just have faith in the clergy...

Unfortunately that applies to both extremes of the MMGW argument. Both the absolute believers & absolute deniers have attained religion status.
Gordon Shumway is offline  
Old 07-14-2019, 12:01 PM
  #26  
RandomTask
CF Senior Member
 
RandomTask's Avatar
 
Member Since: Feb 2008
Location: Alexandria VA
Posts: 11,287
Received 197 Likes on 103 Posts
Default

First, the "study" wasn't peer reviewed. I could just as easily type up a bunch of crap saying "AGW is definitively real and anyone who denies it is a communist!" And stick it on ArXiv. They don't even say were they cited their data from.

But this is how deniers work. Just throw **** on the wall with zero thought to it and just hope something sticks.

Originally Posted by 65Z01 View Post
It's a religious thing, rational sheeple wouldn't understand so shouldn't challenge the doctrine just have faith in the clergy...
There was another thread where another denier said they would never believe in AGW no matter what the evidence. So you tell me who the 'religious' zealots are on. . . The one with mountains of evidence, or the one where they readily admit no amount of evidence would ever change their mind.
RandomTask is offline  
Old 07-14-2019, 12:02 PM
  #27  
RandomTask
CF Senior Member
 
RandomTask's Avatar
 
Member Since: Feb 2008
Location: Alexandria VA
Posts: 11,287
Received 197 Likes on 103 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Gordon Shumway View Post
Unfortunately that applies to both extremes of the MMGW argument. Both the absolute believers & absolute deniers have attained religion status.
Very valid statement.
RandomTask is offline  
Old 07-14-2019, 12:06 PM
  #28  
Dueysan
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,915
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by glbeauchamp View Post
Plant life breathes CO2. You would think the tree huggers would want more of it for their leafy friends to thrive. Especially in the rain forests jungle.
I always ask carbon dioxide hoaxers why they hate plant food so much.
Dueysan is online now  
Old 07-14-2019, 12:44 PM
  #29  
63 340HP
CF Senior Member
 
63 340HP's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2005
Location: Beach & High Desert Southern California
Posts: 16,064
Received 539 Likes on 324 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by RandomTask View Post
First, the "study" wasn't peer reviewed. I could just as easily type up a bunch of crap saying "AGW is definitively real and anyone who denies it is a communist!" And stick it on ArXiv. They don't even say were they cited their data from.

But this is how deniers work. Just throw **** on the wall with zero thought to it and just hope something sticks.


There was another thread where another denier said they would never believe in AGW no matter what the evidence. So you tell me who the 'religious' zealots are on. . . The one with mountains of evidence, or the one where they readily admit no amount of evidence would ever change their mind.
This is how blind faith works. Just throw **** on the wall with zero thought to it and just hope something sticks.

Really, you have reduced your position to questioning Cornell University's publication system to seek and enable Peer review?

The arXiv endorsement system

Since January 17, 2004 arXiv has required that users be endorsed before submitting their first paper to a category or subject class.

Why does arXiv require endorsement?

arXiv is distinct from the web as a whole, because arXiv contains exclusively scientific content. The endorsement system verifies that arXiv contributors belong to the scientific community in a fair and sustainable way that can scale with arXiv's future growth.

arXiv is an openly accessible, moderated repository for scholarly papers in specific scientific disciplines. Material submitted to arXiv is expected to be of interest, relevance, and value to those disciplines. Endorsement is a necessary but not sufficient condition to have papers accepted in arXiv; arXiv reserves the right to reject or reclassify any submission.

The endorsement system ensures that arXiv content is relevant to current research at much lower cost than conventional peer-reviewed journals, so we can continue to offer free access to the scientific community and the general public. Although our system may be imperfect, people who fail to get endorsement are still free to post articles on their web site or to submit their publications to peer-reviewed journals.
Prior publications:

https://arxiv.org/search/physics?sea...Kauppinen%2C+J

Research Paper References:

References
[1] T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, L.V. Alexander, S.K. Allen, N.L. Bindo , F.-M. Breon,
J.A. Church, U. Cubasch, S. Emori, P. Forster, P. Friedlingstein, N. Gillett, J.M. Gregory,
D.L. Hartmann, E. Jansen, B. Kirtman, R. Knutti, K. Krishna Kumar, P. Lemke, J. Marotzke,
V. Masson-Delmotte, G.A. Meehl, I.I. Mokhov, S. Piao, V. Ramaswamy, D. Randall, M. Rhein,
M. Rojas, C. Sabine, D. Shindell, L.D. Talley, D.G. Vaughan, and S.-P. Xie. Technical Sum-
mary, book section TS, page 33115. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA, 2013.
[2] J. Kauppinen, J. Heinonen, and P. Malmi. In
uence of relative humidity and clouds on the
global mean surface temperature. Energy & Environment, 25(2):389{399, 2014.
[3] J. Kauppinen, J. Heinonen, and P. Malmi. Major portions in climate change; physical ap-
proach. International Review of Physics, 5(5):260{270, 2011.
[4] J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi. Major feedback factors and e ects of the cloud cover and the
relative humidity on the climate. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:1812.11547, Dec 2018.
[5] G. Myhre, E. J. Highwood, K. P. Shine, and F. Stordal. New estimates of radiative forcing
due to well mixed greenhouse gases. Geophysical Research Letters, 25(14):2715{2718, 1998.
[6] J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi. To be published.
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku
E-mail address: [email protected]
The paper did not claim the humidity and low cloud cover were the only climate change driving factors (what some opponents argue), but it has motivated considerable discussion that may be better than Peer review (discussion where the settled science camp argues their failures are better than this paper's failures). Even the paper's critics are admitting that the CO2 theory as the primary climate driver is losing scientific validity, and is not settled science, with more research needed.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...lobal-warming/

Any comment on the settled science referenced (obsolete) chart vs. current ECS chart?

Obsolete chart:




vs. the updated chart:



What is your favored CO2 ECS estimate, RT?

Do you acknowledge that the consensus estimates for CO2 ECS & TCR is trending down as Climate Science evolves outside the settled science community?

Do you, RT, readily admit no amount of evidence would ever change your mind that CMMGW is NOT settled science?
63 340HP is offline  
 


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Is 0.01 greater than 0.9?


Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: