Quote:
Originally Posted by freeztar
Huh? What do you mean by this?
What plants? What is the angle of reflection? Etc...
I'm going to have to call BS on this. How do you define "quality light"?
|
My BS?
What is the angle of reflection of IR when interacting with 38-39 pieces in 100,000 (simplify that to the limited range of IR that CO2 concerns -minus the portion the 95% of all green house gases, H20 where H2O absorb capabilities overlap that small band of IR that is the great concern of the AGW crowd) ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeztar
Well, before we go down this path, what do you mean by "energy" and "bouncing"?
The energy 'held and re-emitted' by CO2 is IR. It is re-emitted within nanoseconds of interacting with CO2. When it is re-emitted, it is still IR. Bounce it 1 billion times and it is still IR.
Speed is inconsequential. IR is electromagnetic radiation. It always travels at the speed of light (normally, in a vacuum). If the material absorbs some energy, then yes, you have a net loss of energy (IR) "bouncing" back.
|
Simply put the IR does not last significantly longer (nanoseconds) due to extra CO2. It is bounced like balls on a pool table until it hits the padded side, whether H20 molecules, leaves on a tree, etc where the energy is converted into something else. Or bounces outward into the vacuum of space.
I cant do the math. You cant do the math. We rely on other people to do the math.
Einstein Theory of Relativity (from wiki):
Current status
General relativity has emerged as a highly successful model of gravitation and cosmology, which has so far passed every unambiguous observational and experimental test. Even so, there are strong indications the theory is incomplete.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeztar
This first graphing shows regional specific humidity trends from 1961-1995.
Where?
What significance does this have on the topic?
|
Now your just being flippant. H20 is the most significant GHG. Its presence in the atmosphere is increasing at a much greater rate than co2 (proportionately). White wash it all you want with "well it falls as rain/snow in n days". It, as a single element is cycled, true. But its overall value as a GHG remains in the atmosphere in increasing levels.
And H20 is much more effective as a ghg than co2. Co2 is VERY limited on its ability to act as a Ghg. And its not like Co2 is out there racing around to beat the h2o molecules to catch/reflect all the IR it can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeztar
This is unusable info. It's a third person account from an unidentified local condition.
|
I was not suggesting using this data in the GISS compilations of temperature. I am suggesting the UHI effect is greater than they can possibly wash out of their data, with any degree of confidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeztar
Where's my data?!
I'm not claiming any self-collected data other than what I can find through accountable sources.
|
The point is with a change of one strip of tar, 20 feet wide, the effects could be felt by a common person with no scientific training, approximately 60 feet away. I do not believe this change was .10s of a degree. I am positive this person would not have detected that small of a change.
I could feel the change when they did the east side, 10 years ago. It seldom affects the temperature 60 feet away simply due to the fact the air current exchange during the day is seldom pushed to the west, only right before a front passes thru. I do feel it significantly 20 feet away when going out to get my mail, during sunny days of May, June, July, August, cooler months I need to be a bit closer to feel it, when its calm. If the wind is blowing from the west, I only feel it crossing the road to get my mail.
Show me the calculations which account for these variables.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeztar
OMG!
The Russian data will most likely show that we have been cooling, right? NO!
Again (and again), you can't listen to any one source. Even without the adjusted values, it looks like this attachment:
|
I pointed out the data was not accurate. The flaw was not revealed by the people in charge of insuring data accuracy. The flaw was huge and undetected by the professionals in charge of a very important temperature dataset.
I wish I could find the press release regarding the above mistake. Basically, it said they have no way of confirming the accuracy of [other?] data sources.
But heres some more to ponder:
First one is regarding the October mistake:
globalwarmingquestions - GISS gets it wrong again, and again!(or, Russia's second October revolution)
And as I said about temp adjustments on historic records, heres an easy to see for yourself example:
Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product Watts Up With That?
Quote:
Originally Posted by freeztar
I'm not one that identifies with that crowd. I used to be an alarmist, until I learned more about the biochemistry and climatology. Now, I just try to educate.  |
Good. So, why is there 3 temp adjustments to the recent data? Why are the skeptics having to again and again inform the professionals of inaccuracy and unfinished work.
And this was a glaring error. Why shouldnt I be suspect of the motivations of people whos jobs (and funding) rely on showing an impact?
President Obama 'has four years to save Earth' | Environment | The Observer
