|
|
Post by glc on Aug 31, 2011 11:35:58 GMT
The fact of the matter is that you, Steve, and a few others have the very bad habit of believing your "opinions' or whatever you call your comments - somehow trumps the laws of physics?
I've asked you to explain the physics behind your forecasts/predictions on a number of occasions. I distinctly remember asking if they were based on 'tidal effects' due to planetary motion and, if so, we could run through the calculations. You chose not to answer other than to say how busy you were attending to your many 'clients'.
Over time, though, I've come to realise you are confusing climate projections with weather forecasting. Much of your so-called evidence comes from opinion blogs. You appear unable to differentiate between sound science and the rantings of some nutjob. To be honest, you're probably one of the least informed peope who posts on this blog and now I generally ignore anything you post.
Unfortunately, your posts are incredibly long and irritating as they tend to obscure any genuine discussion that happens to be taking place.
|
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Aug 31, 2011 15:35:16 GMT
My scientific technique is astronomic, called Astrometeorology, and if you would have taken the time to actually read the tutorials I've provided on this board and elsewhere, then you would not have to fake the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. I'd be happy to read a tutorial, assuming it wasn't as rambling and illogical as your typical post. That's probably asking too much, but let's give it a try. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Aug 31, 2011 17:23:26 GMT
The fact of the matter is that you, Steve, and a few others have the very bad habit of believing your "opinions' or whatever you call your comments - somehow trumps the laws of physics? I've asked you to explain the physics behind your forecasts/predictions on a number of occasions. I distinctly remember asking if they were based on 'tidal effects' due to planetary motion and, if so, we could run through the calculations. You chose not to answer other than to say how busy you were attending to your many 'clients'. Over time, though, I've come to realise you are confusing climate projections with weather forecasting. Much of your so-called evidence comes from opinion blogs. You appear unable to differentiate between sound science and the rantings of some nutjob. To be honest, you're probably one of the least informed peope who posts on this blog and now I generally ignore anything you post. Unfortunately, your posts are incredibly long and irritating as they tend to obscure any genuine discussion that happens to be taking place. Glc, I don't know what kind of rant you are on now, but, as you do with Magellan, Icefischer, and others here - you are clearly blind to the the fact that AGW is mathematically impossible to ever occur on the Earth. The laws of physics and thermodynamics say so. Perhaps that is why you like to 'ignore' me, huh? Because you're not able to play your silly games with a true forecaster. On this thread alone, I've repeatedly shown you why this is so and cited scientific papers that prove this fact - not 'opinion blogs' - so why don't you stop playing with yourself? Moreover, you have shown zero respect, or knowledge of forecasting. I do not share my proprietary calculations with jerks. If you want to learn how to forecast astronomically then you will have to pay for the privilege. I work for a living pal. I've provided tutorials on Astrometeorology on SC24 so you and this guy 'commonsense' can find them and start the process of learning that which you obviously do not know about your own world's climate. But that would require that you fellas get off the AGW toilet seat. And if you guys ever do get up off of it, please, don't forget to flush and thoroughly wash your hands. Also, you are not qualified to 'run through my calculations,' in the least, so don't come off behaving as if you're an equal because you are not. Show some talent, show some skill and then maybe we can talk. Until that time, you're just continue to blow a lot of hot air Glc. This 'nutjob' forecasted ENSO and the Japan earthquake by astronomic means. If you can forecast Glc, then I haven't seen it, because talk is cheap pal, and all you've done here is theorize with AGW bull - and that dog just does not hunt. Complaining and whining about having to read anything more than two sentences long will not help you to increase your intelligence or to forecast the climate/weather. It is not a wonder why you don't get it. Obviously, you have problems concentrating which is why you have plenty of time for bullshit along with your wild, unsubstantiated comments and fuzzy math. If my posts are so 'long' and 'irritating' - then do not read them. So please, continue to 'ignore' me. That would solve your problem now won't it? That way, you can continue to live in AGW pseudo-science fantasy land. How's that for brief? |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 31, 2011 18:49:00 GMT
Glc, I don't know what kind of rant you are on now, but, as you do with Magellan, Icefischer, and others here - you are clearly blind to the the fact that AGW is mathematically impossible to ever occur on the Earth.
The laws of physics and thermodynamics say so.
Which laws of physics and thermodynamics?
This is a simple question requiring no more than one or two sentences to answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 31, 2011 21:09:24 GMT
Which laws of physics and thermodynamics?
This is a simple question requiring no more than one or two sentences to answer.
Seems to me you should be consistent here. Either apply all laws of physic simultaneously or none at all. Not doing so and coming up with a warming figure is a violation of laws of thermodynamics and physics.
You desire to relegate cooling from surface evaporation to something that occurs after an "average" amount of radiation is emitted and a warming has occurred on the basis that is instantaneous and nothing else is.
I don't have as much trouble with the idea of forcing (except that "forcing" is an overstatement and "potential" would be much more accurate) nearly as much as everything that is estimated to come after that.
The key here is in the time elements associated with "wattage" "substances" and "warming".
With zero time elapsing at a forcing of a million watts the answer is energy tranferred is zero; thus by the laws of physics zero warming.
Thus when you relegate every other form of energy loss or energy sequestering to the dustbin because its not instantaneous you can come up with something that means exactly zero in the real world.
Rather clearly they are handing out PhDs to folks that have trouble grasping this concept understood easily by every electrician.
One can see the same nonsense when PhDs solely with academia training, compile expected energy production figures from windmills.
The real world is disregarded and the figures of what can be expected are idealized.
Keep in mind GLC everyone of these failures were due to violations of the laws of physics, produced by "assumptions" that did not consider all the physics.
Back radiation does exist. The trick is in calculating it. If you take a plate of steel and expose one side to a constant energy source one side of the plate will be slightly warmer than the other. Reduce the conductivity to say asbestos and the one surface becomes much hotter than the other.
Without computing the conductivity of the atmosphere, including convection, its impossible to deduce the true greenhouse effect.
You should be aware that the IPCC did not do this. They simply blamed everything on CO2 by claiming no other explanation was available.
Kind of like telling a kid it was the tooth fairy that took his tooth from under the pillow while he was sleeping. This is supposed to be a lesson about life GLC. Apparently you missed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Sept 1, 2011 0:17:38 GMT
Astromet,
Is there going to be an La Niña or not?
|
|
|
|
Post by codetalker on Sept 1, 2011 15:22:31 GMT
Monday June 24th 1974 "However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age." From Time magazine: www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html#ixzz1WiK6kLlS Also a cover, supposedly, from Time magazine April 3, 1977 webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:C4gm9_be2ZQJ:katypundit.com/archives/8387+how+to+survive+the+coming+ice+age+time&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-aAnother www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947122,00.html |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Sept 1, 2011 20:34:30 GMT
My scientific technique is astronomic, called Astrometeorology, and if you would have taken the time to actually read the tutorials I've provided on this board and elsewhere, then you would not have to fake the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. I'd be happy to read a tutorial, assuming it wasn't as rambling and illogical as your typical post. That's probably asking too much, but let's give it a try. Appeals to emotion when you lose on facts is not science 'commonsense.' You can easily find my tutorials on astronomic forecasting here on the board. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Sept 1, 2011 20:39:02 GMT
Astromet, Is there going to be an La Niña or not? We've already had a La Niña. The conventional climate centers were very late in getting to the 2009-2011 ENSO, so I would take their forecasts with a grain of salt as they've never forecasted an ENSO in advance. Falling over one another trying to 'forecast' La Nina at this point is an exercise in futility. We're past ENSO, as I've said and are transitioning into another climate regime; which are the last phases of solar-forced global warming, according to my forecasts. We've got about six years until global cooling officially starts. |
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 1, 2011 21:25:59 GMT
Astromet, Is there going to be an La Niña or not? We've already had a La Niña. The conventional climate centers were very late in getting to the 2009-2011 ENSO, so I would take their forecasts with a grain of salt as they've never forecasted an ENSO in advance. Falling over one another trying to 'forecast' La Nina at this point is an exercise in futility. We're past ENSO, as I've said and are transitioning into another climate regime; which are the last phases of solar-forced global warming, according to my forecasts. We've got about six years until global cooling officially starts. Wow! What a prediction. You are actually saying that ENSO is a thing of the past? Your claim that the experts have never forecast ENSO is wrong, of course, as is your conclusion that continuing to advance the science is futile. Your final claim, that global warming is solar forced is ridiculous, of course, though your prediction that we've got six years left of global warming at least gives you a while before you're proven wrong. By the way, you also claimed to have posted tutorials on your techniques. I (and others) showed interest in said techniques, but you haven't responded positively. Please post your tutorial or a link to it instead of simply claiming it is "easily found". if you want to be treated with a modicum of respect, then I suggest you follow through with that tutorial. We'll all be waiting. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Sept 2, 2011 2:01:15 GMT
We've already had a La Niña. The conventional climate centers were very late in getting to the 2009-2011 ENSO, so I would take their forecasts with a grain of salt as they've never forecasted an ENSO in advance. Falling over one another trying to 'forecast' La Nina at this point is an exercise in futility. We're past ENSO, as I've said and are transitioning into another climate regime; which are the last phases of solar-forced global warming, according to my forecasts. We've got about six years until global cooling officially starts. Wow! What a prediction. You are actually saying that ENSO is a thing of the past? Your claim that the experts have never forecast ENSO is wrong, of course, as is your conclusion that continuing to advance the science is futile. Your final claim, that global warming is solar forced is ridiculous, of course, though your prediction that we've got six years left of global warming at least gives you a while before you're proven wrong. By the way, you also claimed to have posted tutorials on your techniques. I (and others) showed interest in said techniques, but you haven't responded positively. Please post your tutorial or a link to it instead of simply claiming it is "easily found". if you want to be treated with a modicum of respect, then I suggest you follow through with that tutorial. We'll all be waiting. First, I answered a question. It wasn't a prediction. Forecasting is not a video game 'commonsense,' as all true forecasters know. As for ENSO, we've already had one, and I forecasted that back in 2006, so you don't have to 'wait six years' to see if that is true now do you? We've already been through ENSO. As for my tutorial, you can wait until hell freezes over for all I care for me to get it to you. You can easily find it here on this board and I'm not going to go find it for you either. I have better things to do than babysit you. Get off your duff and do that yourself since you say that it is "ridiculous global warming is solar-forced." What is ridiculous is the fact that you actually believe that it is not - and that is where you are 100% wrong. If the Sun disappeared tomorrow dipstick - you surely would discover who is "ridiculous" and whom is not. Talk about a lack of "commonsense." Geez. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Sept 2, 2011 3:20:46 GMT
We will soon know what happens with ENSO. Historically, from this point it has gone in three alternative ways, back to La Nina, continuing ENSO neutral, or into El Nino.
|
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 2, 2011 4:12:57 GMT
Wow! What a prediction. You are actually saying that ENSO is a thing of the past? Your claim that the experts have never forecast ENSO is wrong, of course, as is your conclusion that continuing to advance the science is futile. Your final claim, that global warming is solar forced is ridiculous, of course, though your prediction that we've got six years left of global warming at least gives you a while before you're proven wrong. By the way, you also claimed to have posted tutorials on your techniques. I (and others) showed interest in said techniques, but you haven't responded positively. Please post your tutorial or a link to it instead of simply claiming it is "easily found". if you want to be treated with a modicum of respect, then I suggest you follow through with that tutorial. We'll all be waiting. First, I answered a question. It wasn't a prediction. Forecasting is not a video game 'commonsense,' as all true forecasters know. As for ENSO, we've already had one, and I forecasted that back in 2006, so you don't have to 'wait six years' to see if that is true now do you? We've already been through ENSO. As for my tutorial, you can wait until hell freezes over for all I care for me to get it to you. You can easily find it here on this board and I'm not going to go find it for you either. I have better things to do than babysit you. Get off your duff and do that yourself since you say that it is "ridiculous global warming is solar-forced." What is ridiculous is the fact that you actually believe that it is not - and that is where you are 100% wrong. If the Sun disappeared tomorrow dipstick - you surely would discover who is "ridiculous" and whom is not. Talk about a lack of "commonsense." Geez. As I suspected, you resorted to insults and non-truths and irrelevancies. If the sun disappeared tomorrow is a ridiculous speculation. The question is whether the sun changes fast enough to be a driver of climate change on human scales. For you to have any credibility, you'd have to show not only that the sun does change quickly enough to be a factor, but that all other factors somehow fade into the background, and also that there is a technique currently available (apparently available only to you and your friends) which allows one to predict said changes in advance. Fat friggin chance, but I'm always open to new ideas. All I asked was for the tutorial you allegedly posted here. You can't seem to point to it, and a search of the site doesn't show it up on first pass. I bet that neither you nor any of your 3 fans can actually point to it, and I'd bet the ranch that none of you could defend it if it does exist. Since you aren't any good at pointing to your own alleged post, I'll broaden the field. Can anybody here remember an actual tutorial posted by or pointed to by Astromet? My bet is that this will come up empty since your entire tutorial seems to be "It's the sun and I can predict solar behaviour - and since it's been done for centuries, I can do it without a computer or other modern devices." Amazing how such valuable science has been neglected for centuries! Again, has anybody seen any explanation by Astromet as to how his astrometeorology works? Everyone will be waiting. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Sept 2, 2011 4:27:52 GMT
First, I answered a question. It wasn't a prediction. Forecasting is not a video game 'commonsense,' as all true forecasters know. As for ENSO, we've already had one, and I forecasted that back in 2006, so you don't have to 'wait six years' to see if that is true now do you? We've already been through ENSO. As for my tutorial, you can wait until hell freezes over for all I care for me to get it to you. You can easily find it here on this board and I'm not going to go find it for you either. I have better things to do than babysit you. Get off your duff and do that yourself since you say that it is "ridiculous global warming is solar-forced." What is ridiculous is the fact that you actually believe that it is not - and that is where you are 100% wrong. If the Sun disappeared tomorrow dipstick - you surely would discover who is "ridiculous" and whom is not. Talk about a lack of "commonsense." Geez. As I suspected, you resorted to insults and non-truths and irrelevancies. If the sun disappeared tomorrow is a ridiculous speculation. The question is whether the sun changes fast enough to be a driver of climate change on human scales. For you to have any credibility, you'd have to show not only that the sun does change quickly enough to be a factor, but that all other factors somehow fade into the background, and also that there is a technique currently available (apparently available only to you and your friends) which allows one to predict said changes in advance. Fat friggin chance, but I'm always open to new ideas. All I asked was for the tutorial you allegedly posted here. You can't seem to point to it, and a search of the site doesn't show it up on first pass. I bet that neither you nor any of your 3 fans can actually point to it, and I'd bet the ranch that none of you could defend it if it does exist. Since you aren't any good at pointing to your own alleged post, I'll broaden the field. Can anybody here remember an actual tutorial posted by or pointed to by Astromet? My bet is that this will come up empty since your entire tutorial seems to be "It's the sun and I can predict solar behaviour - and since it's been done for centuries, I can do it without a computer or other modern devices." Amazing how such valuable science has been neglected for centuries! Again, has anybody seen any explanation by Astromet as to how his astrometeorology works? Everyone will be waiting. commonsense, I suggest that you calm down a bit. It's not so bad, This Solar Cycle 24 discussion forum is quite an interesting place to hang out. You just need to get used to it. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Sept 2, 2011 4:43:20 GMT
First, I answered a question. It wasn't a prediction. Forecasting is not a video game 'commonsense,' as all true forecasters know. As for ENSO, we've already had one, and I forecasted that back in 2006, so you don't have to 'wait six years' to see if that is true now do you? We've already been through ENSO. As for my tutorial, you can wait until hell freezes over for all I care for me to get it to you. You can easily find it here on this board and I'm not going to go find it for you either. I have better things to do than babysit you. Get off your duff and do that yourself since you say that it is "ridiculous global warming is solar-forced." What is ridiculous is the fact that you actually believe that it is not - and that is where you are 100% wrong. If the Sun disappeared tomorrow dipstick - you surely would discover who is "ridiculous" and whom is not. Talk about a lack of "commonsense." Geez. As I suspected, you resorted to insults and non-truths and irrelevancies. If the sun disappeared tomorrow is a ridiculous speculation. The question is whether the sun changes fast enough to be a driver of climate change on human scales. For you to have any credibility, you'd have to show not only that the sun does change quickly enough to be a factor, but that all other factors somehow fade into the background, and also that there is a technique currently available (apparently available only to you and your friends) which allows one to predict said changes in advance. Fat friggin chance, but I'm always open to new ideas. All I asked was for the tutorial you allegedly posted here. You can't seem to point to it, and a search of the site doesn't show it up on first pass. I bet that neither you nor any of your 3 fans can actually point to it, and I'd bet the ranch that none of you could defend it if it does exist. Since you aren't any good at pointing to your own alleged post, I'll broaden the field. Can anybody here remember an actual tutorial posted by or pointed to by Astromet? My bet is that this will come up empty since your entire tutorial seems to be "It's the sun and I can predict solar behaviour - and since it's been done for centuries, I can do it without a computer or other modern devices." Amazing how such valuable science has been neglected for centuries! Again, has anybody seen any explanation by Astromet as to how his astrometeorology works? Everyone will be waiting. Again, you are ignorant of the history of meteorology, invented by astrologers. I suggest that rather than mouthing off with your ignorance, that you increase your IQ by learning that which you do not know. Two ears, two eyes, one tongue - that should tell you a lot. |
|
