| 14-10-2017 06:40 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Nothing wrong with my math. You need to grow up and get a life.
There is plenty wrong with your math. If you expect to get a decent result, you have to use something besides random numbers as source terms, and you have to justify the equation (which you never did).
GreenMan wrote:
You think you can just say whatever you want, and for some reason you expect people to believe you.
No, you have to actually use valid and verifiable data, learn statistical math and apply it properly, and justify your equation.
My equation justifies itself. Your problem is that you don't understand how the average temperature of Antarctica could possibly represent the average temperature of the planet. All you have to do is offset the average temperature of Antarctica and you will be close to the average temperature of the planet. It won't be exact, but it will be within a degree plus or minus usually. Some periods of rapid change could cause it to be off by as much as 3C, which is what we are seeing currently.
The scientists who are studying the earth's climate decided to use the ice from around the world's glaciers. Your argument is with them, actually, since they are the ones who decided to do it that way. Perhaps you think you know more than they do?
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| 14-10-2017 17:44 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
So you don't believe in evidence based sciecnce over faith then.
Now I see why you are so useless in the AGW debate.
Coming from you, that's a compliment. Thanks.
You can't convince someone of something that they are dead set against. Such is debating AGW. People like you will always be around, questioning those who know the answers, because you just can't accept reality.
Yes, actually, I do believe in evidence based science, over what you call faith. If my interpretations to prophecy don't make sense logically, or realistically, then I rethink my interpretation until it makes sense in every way. I don't really have faith, as you call it. Any of the things I actually believe in are subject to change based on new information coming in.
1, You quote the bible as evidence of something other than a fairy tale; V.poor.
2, You are unable to understand what an energy buget is and yet think yourself capable of putting out climate models.
3, You are a prize prat.
To avoid this conclusion from all who read your words try to tell us how an energy budget works. |
| 14-10-2017 17:56 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
So you don't believe in evidence based sciecnce over faith then.
Now I see why you are so useless in the AGW debate.
Coming from you, that's a compliment. Thanks.
You can't convince someone of something that they are dead set against. Such is debating AGW. People like you will always be around, questioning those who know the answers, because you just can't accept reality.
Yes, actually, I do believe in evidence based science, over what you call faith. If my interpretations to prophecy don't make sense logically, or realistically, then I rethink my interpretation until it makes sense in every way. I don't really have faith, as you call it. Any of the things I actually believe in are subject to change based on new information coming in.
1, You quote the bible as evidence of something other than a fairy tale; V.poor.
2, You are unable to understand what an energy buget is and yet think yourself capable of putting out climate models.
3, You are a prize prat.
To avoid this conclusion from all who read your words try to tell us how an energy budget works.
You can watch him fumbling around. I was sort of hoping that he could learn but apparently not. |
| 14-10-2017 21:09 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21597) |
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Nothing wrong with my math. You need to grow up and get a life.
There is plenty wrong with your math. If you expect to get a decent result, you have to use something besides random numbers as source terms, and you have to justify the equation (which you never did).
GreenMan wrote:
You think you can just say whatever you want, and for some reason you expect people to believe you.
No, you have to actually use valid and verifiable data, learn statistical math and apply it properly, and justify your equation.
My equation justifies itself.
No equation justifies itself.
GreenMan wrote:
Your problem is that you don't understand how the average temperature of Antarctica could possibly represent the average temperature of the planet.
It can't.
GreenMan wrote:
All you have to do is offset the average temperature of Antarctica and you will be close to the average temperature of the planet.
Math error.
GreenMan wrote:
It won't be exact, but it will be within a degree plus or minus usually.
You are guessing.
GreenMan wrote:
Some periods of rapid change could cause it to be off by as much as 3C, which is what we are seeing currently.
You are still guessing.
GreenMan wrote:
The scientists who are studying the earth's climate decided to use the ice from around the world's glaciers.
There is no branch of science for climate. Science has no theories about unspecifiable terms. No theory can exist based on a void argument.
GreenMan wrote:
Your argument is with them, actually, since they are the ones who decided to do it that way.
'They' are just priests in the Church of Global Warming. If you are going to blame the priests for your belief, that is YOUR problem. You are lying to yourself!
GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps you think you know more than they do?
Yes.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 14-10-2017 21:11 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
So you don't believe in evidence based sciecnce over faith then.
Now I see why you are so useless in the AGW debate.
Coming from you, that's a compliment. Thanks.
You can't convince someone of something that they are dead set against. Such is debating AGW. People like you will always be around, questioning those who know the answers, because you just can't accept reality.
Yes, actually, I do believe in evidence based science, over what you call faith. If my interpretations to prophecy don't make sense logically, or realistically, then I rethink my interpretation until it makes sense in every way. I don't really have faith, as you call it. Any of the things I actually believe in are subject to change based on new information coming in.
1, You quote the bible as evidence of something other than a fairy tale; V.poor.
2, You are unable to understand what an energy buget is and yet think yourself capable of putting out climate models.
3, You are a prize prat.
To avoid this conclusion from all who read your words try to tell us how an energy budget works.
You can watch him fumbling around. I was sort of hoping that he could learn but apparently not.
People locked into a fundamentalist belief like this have closed their minds. They are unable to learn or even discern the flaws of an argument.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
|
| 15-10-2017 13:06 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
So you don't believe in evidence based sciecnce over faith then.
Now I see why you are so useless in the AGW debate.
Coming from you, that's a compliment. Thanks.
You can't convince someone of something that they are dead set against. Such is debating AGW. People like you will always be around, questioning those who know the answers, because you just can't accept reality.
Yes, actually, I do believe in evidence based science, over what you call faith. If my interpretations to prophecy don't make sense logically, or realistically, then I rethink my interpretation until it makes sense in every way. I don't really have faith, as you call it. Any of the things I actually believe in are subject to change based on new information coming in.
1, You quote the bible as evidence of something other than a fairy tale; V.poor.
2, You are unable to understand what an energy buget is and yet think yourself capable of putting out climate models.
3, You are a prize prat.
To avoid this conclusion from all who read your words try to tell us how an energy budget works.
Sounds to me like a complete idiot called someone else one. Why should I attempt to explain how an energy budget works, when an energy budget doesn't do any work? An energy budget explains the balance of energy received and emitted by an object, such as earth. In equilibrium the object incoming and outgoing energy are balanced, and the object maintains whatever temperature it happens to be. If the object is not in equilibrium, then the object is either cooling off, or heating up. An energy budget explains the balance, or imbalance.
The model that I built does not work of off an energy budget, it explains why the budget goes negative or positive. In other words, it is an energy budget. It clearly plots changes in temperature of the earth over time, that follow what the earth actually did.
You obviously have a low opinion of people who believe in the Bible, and of people who believe we should do something about AGW. And I am both, so I'm sure that puts me way up there on your shit list. Fine with me. I actually take that as a compliment, coming from you.
The Bible is a very useful tool, for someone who wants to make it through the next several decades alive and with their families. It ain't no joke, but feel free to make a joke about it. The prophets did. They laughed at your expense quite a bit. They described you as sitting on walls, eating your own shit, as you cursed those who were preparing for their own survival. Getting to watch it all unfold in front of me is incredible.
It is very useful, though there has been a lot of misuse of the Bible over the years, including the promotion of the false God, that it predicted itself. It is still used today to promote the Jesus God by Christianity, even though the Jesus God was predicted by it. They didn't realize it though, and just tacked their own books on to the end of it. It's funny when you think about it. And then to top it off, the added their own prophecy, which predicts their own downfall, onto the very end, because they didn't know what it means either. It's so funny, you don't even get to laugh, because you realize that it's real. And here we are, both of us, rolled right into this huge bag of shit, which we have created.
I don't know about you, but I want to open up a hole somewhere, and exit this bag of shit. I'm thinking that you, being a plumber and all, understand this.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Edited on 15-10-2017 13:11 |
| 15-10-2017 13:34 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Nothing wrong with my math. You need to grow up and get a life.
There is plenty wrong with your math. If you expect to get a decent result, you have to use something besides random numbers as source terms, and you have to justify the equation (which you never did).
GreenMan wrote:
You think you can just say whatever you want, and for some reason you expect people to believe you.
No, you have to actually use valid and verifiable data, learn statistical math and apply it properly, and justify your equation.
My equation justifies itself.
No equation justifies itself.
GreenMan wrote:
Your problem is that you don't understand how the average temperature of Antarctica could possibly represent the average temperature of the planet.
It can't.
GreenMan wrote:
All you have to do is offset the average temperature of Antarctica and you will be close to the average temperature of the planet.
Math error.
GreenMan wrote:
It won't be exact, but it will be within a degree plus or minus usually.
You are guessing.
GreenMan wrote:
Some periods of rapid change could cause it to be off by as much as 3C, which is what we are seeing currently.
You are still guessing.
GreenMan wrote:
The scientists who are studying the earth's climate decided to use the ice from around the world's glaciers.
There is no branch of science for climate. Science has no theories about unspecifiable terms. No theory can exist based on a void argument.
GreenMan wrote:
Your argument is with them, actually, since they are the ones who decided to do it that way.
'They' are just priests in the Church of Global Warming. If you are going to blame the priests for your belief, that is YOUR problem. You are lying to yourself!
GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps you think you know more than they do?
Yes.
The average temperature of Antarctica does closely follow the average temperature of the earth. If it makes you feel better, just consider that my model is only predicting the average temperature of that little spot on the earth. But it was very accurately predicting that spot's temperature, for 800,000 years.
The association between that tiny spot's average temperature and the earth's average temperature is really a logical error, or not. Which, since logic is math, I can't really argue that it is not a math error. But it's not what I, or most people consider a mathematical error. as in [2 + 2 = 5]
And I know for sure that there are periods of time when the offset between the two averages does vary by as much as 3C, because there is a variation like that going on now. The climate researchers show it as the polar regions warming quicker than the rest of the planet. That variation is helping us now, but killing us in the future. In that it is helping the rest of the planet stay cool, as the ice slowly melts. If we continue on increasing the average temperature of the planet, the ice eventually melts. That's hundreds of years into the future, and we of course won't live that long. But it's still something to think about.
We simply don't have any way of telling what the exact average temperature of the planet in the past, including last year if you demand dead nuts accuracy before being used for comparison to other years.
The only logical thing to do then is use the best thing we have to represent the average temperature of the planet. Of course, we could all just throw our hands up and go home and get back to the part.
And no, I am not blaming the "priests," as you call them for my understanding of Global Warming. I did my own research. I am simply pointing out that my use of Antarctica as a proxy for the planet's average global temperature agrees with what the real climate experts are doing.
About time for me to take you down to the river.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| 15-10-2017 20:11 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
GreenMan wrote:
Sounds to me like a complete idiot called someone else one. Why should I attempt to explain how an energy budget works, when an energy budget doesn't do any work? An energy budget explains the balance of energy received and emitted by an object, such as earth. In equilibrium the object incoming and outgoing energy are balanced, and the object maintains whatever temperature it happens to be. If the object is not in equilibrium, then the object is either cooling off, or heating up. An energy budget explains the balance, or imbalance.
The model that I built does not work of off an energy budget, it explains why the budget goes negative or positive. In other words, it is an energy budget. It clearly plots changes in temperature of the earth over time, that follow what the earth actually did.
You obviously have a low opinion of people who believe in the Bible, and of people who believe we should do something about AGW. And I am both, so I'm sure that puts me way up there on your shit list. Fine with me. I actually take that as a compliment, coming from you.
The Bible is a very useful tool, for someone who wants to make it through the next several decades alive and with their families. It ain't no joke, but feel free to make a joke about it. The prophets did. They laughed at your expense quite a bit. They described you as sitting on walls, eating your own shit, as you cursed those who were preparing for their own survival. Getting to watch it all unfold in front of me is incredible.
It is very useful, though there has been a lot of misuse of the Bible over the years, including the promotion of the false God, that it predicted itself. It is still used today to promote the Jesus God by Christianity, even though the Jesus God was predicted by it. They didn't realize it though, and just tacked their own books on to the end of it. It's funny when you think about it. And then to top it off, the added their own prophecy, which predicts their own downfall, onto the very end, because they didn't know what it means either. It's so funny, you don't even get to laugh, because you realize that it's real. And here we are, both of us, rolled right into this huge bag of shit, which we have created.
I don't know about you, but I want to open up a hole somewhere, and exit this bag of shit. I'm thinking that you, being a plumber and all, understand this.
You should try and explain the Earth's energy budget for several reasons but the most important is to show that you know what it is. So far you don't seem to understand that energy in = energy out. ALWAYS.
When you use the Old Testament to explain science there is good reason for people to look down on you. Plainly you cannot separate religion from science. |
| 15-10-2017 20:39 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
So you don't believe in evidence based sciecnce over faith then.
Now I see why you are so useless in the AGW debate.
Coming from you, that's a compliment. Thanks.
You can't convince someone of something that they are dead set against. Such is debating AGW. People like you will always be around, questioning those who know the answers, because you just can't accept reality.
Yes, actually, I do believe in evidence based science, over what you call faith. If my interpretations to prophecy don't make sense logically, or realistically, then I rethink my interpretation until it makes sense in every way. I don't really have faith, as you call it. Any of the things I actually believe in are subject to change based on new information coming in.
1, You quote the bible as evidence of something other than a fairy tale; V.poor.
2, You are unable to understand what an energy buget is and yet think yourself capable of putting out climate models.
3, You are a prize prat.
To avoid this conclusion from all who read your words try to tell us how an energy budget works.
Sounds to me like a complete idiot called someone else one. Why should I attempt to explain how an energy budget works, when an energy budget doesn't do any work? An energy budget explains the balance of energy received and emitted by an object, such as earth. In equilibrium the object incoming and outgoing energy are balanced, and the object maintains whatever temperature it happens to be. If the object is not in equilibrium, then the object is either cooling off, or heating up. An energy budget explains the balance, or imbalance.
The model that I built does not work of off an energy budget, it explains why the budget goes negative or positive.
No, it explains that you can generate and use random numbers like everybody else.
GreenMan wrote:
In other words, it is an energy budget. It clearly plots changes in temperature of the earth over time, that follow what the earth actually did.
You don't know the temperature of the Earth or what it actually did. It's not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
You obviously have a low opinion of people who believe in the Bible, and of people who believe we should do something about AGW. And I am both, so I'm sure that puts me way up there on your shit list. Fine with me. I actually take that as a compliment, coming from you.
You have a weird idea of what you consider a compliment.
[quote]GreenMan wrote:
It is very useful, though there has been a lot of misuse of the Bible over the years, including the promotion of the false God, that it predicted itself. It is still used today to promote the Jesus God by Christianity, even though the Jesus God was predicted by it.
Jesus Christ himself gave this warning, dumbass.
GreenMan wrote:
I don't know about you, but I want to open up a hole somewhere, and exit this bag of shit. I'm thinking that you, being a plumber and all, understand this.
Personally, I think the Earth is a beautiful place. You ought to get your head out of your religion and go out and take a look at it before you kill yourself.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 15-10-2017 20:59 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
GreenMan wrote:
The average temperature of Antarctica does closely follow the average temperature of the earth.
No, it doesn't. You don't know the temperature of Antarctica or the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
If it makes you feel better, just consider that my model is only predicting the average temperature of that little spot on the earth. But it was very accurately predicting that spot's temperature, for 800,000 years.
Random numbers do not have the power of prediction.
GreenMan wrote:
The association between that tiny spot's average temperature and the earth's average temperature is really a logical error, or not.
No, it's a math error.
GreenMan wrote:
Which, since logic is math,
Logic is not math. Math is not not logic. They are two completely separate closed systems.
GreenMan wrote:
I can't really argue that it is not a math error.
True. You don't know statistical math. You don't know enough to say why your math is right or wrong.
GreenMan wrote:
But it's not what I, or most people consider a mathematical error. as in [2 + 2 = 5]
Math is more than arithmetic, even though all branches of math come from there.
GreenMan wrote:
And I know for sure that there are periods of time when the offset between the two averages does vary by as much as 3C,
Argument from randU. You don't know that the number is or why. You are just guessing.
GreenMan wrote:
because there is a variation like that going on now.
By how much? Your new random number?
GreenMan wrote:
The climate researchers show it as the polar regions warming quicker than the rest of the planet.
You don't know the temperature of the polar regions or of the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
That variation is helping us now, but killing us in the future.
Random numbers don't help or hurt (other than by deception). They are random numbers.
GreenMan wrote:
In that it is helping the rest of the planet stay cool, as the ice slowly melts.
The ice isn't melting. It is currently growing in the Arctic. It has grown to such massive proportions in the Antarctic that big hunks of it are breaking off.
GreenMan wrote:
If we continue on increasing the average temperature of the planet, the ice eventually melts.
You don't know the temperature of the Earth. Man cannot affect the temperature of the Earth to any significant degree.
GreenMan wrote:
That's hundreds of years into the future, and we of course won't live that long.
Like most in the Church of Global Warming, you make your 'predictions' at a point where you will be dead, and anyone who points their finger at you declaring you a false prophet is also dead. It is 'our children who will suffer'. Yet another plea to 'save the children' by subjugating them. Your Church is warped.
GreenMan wrote:
But it's still something to think about.
[quote]GreenMan wrote:
We simply don't have any way of telling what the exact average temperature of the planet in the past, including last year if you demand dead nuts accuracy before being used for comparison to other years.
I don't demand dead nuts accuracy. I expect you to calculate the margin of error for your statistical summary and declare it. To bad you don't know how.
GreenMan wrote:
The only logical thing to do then is use the best thing we have to represent the average temperature of the planet.
The best thing we have to represent the average temperature of Earth is random numbers. We just don't have anywhere near enough thermometers, they are not equally spaced, and they are not being read at the same time.
GreenMan wrote:
Of course, we could all just throw our hands up and go home and get back to the part.
And no, I am not blaming the "priests," as you call them for my understanding of Global Warming.
You did exactly that, liar. Go ask forgiveness from them. I find it quite hilarious.
GreenMan wrote:
I did my own research. I am simply pointing out that my use of Antarctica as a proxy for the planet's average global temperature agrees with what the real climate experts are doing.
There is no such thing as a climate 'scientist' or climate 'expert'. These guys are charlatans. There is no such thing as a global 'climate', since there is no such thing as global weather.
GreenMan wrote:
About time for me to take you down to the river.
Which one?
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 15-10-2017 21:01 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Sounds to me like a complete idiot called someone else one. Why should I attempt to explain how an energy budget works, when an energy budget doesn't do any work? An energy budget explains the balance of energy received and emitted by an object, such as earth. In equilibrium the object incoming and outgoing energy are balanced, and the object maintains whatever temperature it happens to be. If the object is not in equilibrium, then the object is either cooling off, or heating up. An energy budget explains the balance, or imbalance.
The model that I built does not work of off an energy budget, it explains why the budget goes negative or positive. In other words, it is an energy budget. It clearly plots changes in temperature of the earth over time, that follow what the earth actually did.
You obviously have a low opinion of people who believe in the Bible, and of people who believe we should do something about AGW. And I am both, so I'm sure that puts me way up there on your shit list. Fine with me. I actually take that as a compliment, coming from you.
The Bible is a very useful tool, for someone who wants to make it through the next several decades alive and with their families. It ain't no joke, but feel free to make a joke about it. The prophets did. They laughed at your expense quite a bit. They described you as sitting on walls, eating your own shit, as you cursed those who were preparing for their own survival. Getting to watch it all unfold in front of me is incredible.
It is very useful, though there has been a lot of misuse of the Bible over the years, including the promotion of the false God, that it predicted itself. It is still used today to promote the Jesus God by Christianity, even though the Jesus God was predicted by it. They didn't realize it though, and just tacked their own books on to the end of it. It's funny when you think about it. And then to top it off, the added their own prophecy, which predicts their own downfall, onto the very end, because they didn't know what it means either. It's so funny, you don't even get to laugh, because you realize that it's real. And here we are, both of us, rolled right into this huge bag of shit, which we have created.
I don't know about you, but I want to open up a hole somewhere, and exit this bag of shit. I'm thinking that you, being a plumber and all, understand this.
You should try and explain the Earth's energy budget for several reasons but the most important is to show that you know what it is. So far you don't seem to understand that energy in = energy out. ALWAYS.
Except for when the output of the Sun changes and the mass of the Earth hasn't adjusted for it yet, true.
Wake wrote:
When you use the Old Testament to explain science there is good reason for people to look down on you. Plainly you cannot separate religion from science.
He doesn't know what science is. For him, religion IS science.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 15-10-2017 21:17 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
So you don't believe in evidence based sciecnce over faith then.
Now I see why you are so useless in the AGW debate.
Coming from you, that's a compliment. Thanks.
You can't convince someone of something that they are dead set against. Such is debating AGW. People like you will always be around, questioning those who know the answers, because you just can't accept reality.
Yes, actually, I do believe in evidence based science, over what you call faith. If my interpretations to prophecy don't make sense logically, or realistically, then I rethink my interpretation until it makes sense in every way. I don't really have faith, as you call it. Any of the things I actually believe in are subject to change based on new information coming in.
1, You quote the bible as evidence of something other than a fairy tale; V.poor.
2, You are unable to understand what an energy buget is and yet think yourself capable of putting out climate models.
3, You are a prize prat.
To avoid this conclusion from all who read your words try to tell us how an energy budget works.
Sounds to me like a complete idiot called someone else one. Why should I attempt to explain how an energy budget works, when an energy budget doesn't do any work? An energy budget explains the balance of energy received and emitted by an object, such as earth. In equilibrium the object incoming and outgoing energy are balanced, and the object maintains whatever temperature it happens to be. If the object is not in equilibrium, then the object is either cooling off, or heating up. An energy budget explains the balance, or imbalance.
The model that I built does not work of off an energy budget, it explains why the budget goes negative or positive. In other words, it is an energy budget. It clearly plots changes in temperature of the earth over time, that follow what the earth actually did.
You obviously have a low opinion of people who believe in the Bible, and of people who believe we should do something about AGW. And I am both, so I'm sure that puts me way up there on your shit list. Fine with me. I actually take that as a compliment, coming from you.
The Bible is a very useful tool, for someone who wants to make it through the next several decades alive and with their families. It ain't no joke, but feel free to make a joke about it. The prophets did. They laughed at your expense quite a bit. They described you as sitting on walls, eating your own shit, as you cursed those who were preparing for their own survival. Getting to watch it all unfold in front of me is incredible.
It is very useful, though there has been a lot of misuse of the Bible over the years, including the promotion of the false God, that it predicted itself. It is still used today to promote the Jesus God by Christianity, even though the Jesus God was predicted by it. They didn't realize it though, and just tacked their own books on to the end of it. It's funny when you think about it. And then to top it off, the added their own prophecy, which predicts their own downfall, onto the very end, because they didn't know what it means either. It's so funny, you don't even get to laugh, because you realize that it's real. And here we are, both of us, rolled right into this huge bag of shit, which we have created.
I don't know about you, but I want to open up a hole somewhere, and exit this bag of shit. I'm thinking that you, being a plumber and all, understand this.
OK, so you know what an energy budget is. Let's see if you can understand the basics of heat capacity;
If the top 700m of the world's oceans absorbs 1 Zettajoule of energy extra what is the mean temperature increase over 1 year? |
| 16-10-2017 01:52 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
So you don't believe in evidence based sciecnce over faith then.
Now I see why you are so useless in the AGW debate.
Coming from you, that's a compliment. Thanks.
You can't convince someone of something that they are dead set against. Such is debating AGW. People like you will always be around, questioning those who know the answers, because you just can't accept reality.
Yes, actually, I do believe in evidence based science, over what you call faith. If my interpretations to prophecy don't make sense logically, or realistically, then I rethink my interpretation until it makes sense in every way. I don't really have faith, as you call it. Any of the things I actually believe in are subject to change based on new information coming in.
1, You quote the bible as evidence of something other than a fairy tale; V.poor.
2, You are unable to understand what an energy buget is and yet think yourself capable of putting out climate models.
3, You are a prize prat.
To avoid this conclusion from all who read your words try to tell us how an energy budget works.
Sounds to me like a complete idiot called someone else one. Why should I attempt to explain how an energy budget works, when an energy budget doesn't do any work? An energy budget explains the balance of energy received and emitted by an object, such as earth. In equilibrium the object incoming and outgoing energy are balanced, and the object maintains whatever temperature it happens to be. If the object is not in equilibrium, then the object is either cooling off, or heating up. An energy budget explains the balance, or imbalance.
The model that I built does not work of off an energy budget, it explains why the budget goes negative or positive. In other words, it is an energy budget. It clearly plots changes in temperature of the earth over time, that follow what the earth actually did.
You obviously have a low opinion of people who believe in the Bible, and of people who believe we should do something about AGW. And I am both, so I'm sure that puts me way up there on your shit list. Fine with me. I actually take that as a compliment, coming from you.
The Bible is a very useful tool, for someone who wants to make it through the next several decades alive and with their families. It ain't no joke, but feel free to make a joke about it. The prophets did. They laughed at your expense quite a bit. They described you as sitting on walls, eating your own shit, as you cursed those who were preparing for their own survival. Getting to watch it all unfold in front of me is incredible.
It is very useful, though there has been a lot of misuse of the Bible over the years, including the promotion of the false God, that it predicted itself. It is still used today to promote the Jesus God by Christianity, even though the Jesus God was predicted by it. They didn't realize it though, and just tacked their own books on to the end of it. It's funny when you think about it. And then to top it off, the added their own prophecy, which predicts their own downfall, onto the very end, because they didn't know what it means either. It's so funny, you don't even get to laugh, because you realize that it's real. And here we are, both of us, rolled right into this huge bag of shit, which we have created.
I don't know about you, but I want to open up a hole somewhere, and exit this bag of shit. I'm thinking that you, being a plumber and all, understand this.
OK, so you know what an energy budget is. Let's see if you can understand the basics of heat capacity;
If the top 700m of the world's oceans absorbs 1 Zettajoule of energy extra what is the mean temperature increase over 1 year?
You must have a good calculator. That number is 1 x 10^21 joules which would be 0.239 of a calorie/joule x 1 x 10^21 or 2.39 x 10^20 calories.
89,300 x 10^12 watts strike the Earth per revolution. Or in simpler terms - the amount of power that reaches the surface of the Earth is 24,805,555,555,555 calories per revolution. Let's round that off to 25 x 10^12 calories. (I add this as a reference point).
Salt water with a mass of 64 lbs/cubic foot or 2,679 lbs/meter^3. Ocean surface area of 510 million km^2 so total volume of 700 m x 510,000,000,000 = 357,000,000,000,000 cubic meters of salt water.
1,215,000 grams/m^3 or 433,755,000,000,000,000,000 grams. Say 434 x 10^18 grams.
It requires about 1 calorie to raise one gram of salt water one degree C.
434 x 10^18 grams/ 2.39 x 10^20 calories = 1.82 C as a first approximation if I didn't screw the math up. |
| 16-10-2017 06:47 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
So you don't believe in evidence based sciecnce over faith then.
Now I see why you are so useless in the AGW debate.
Coming from you, that's a compliment. Thanks.
You can't convince someone of something that they are dead set against. Such is debating AGW. People like you will always be around, questioning those who know the answers, because you just can't accept reality.
Yes, actually, I do believe in evidence based science, over what you call faith. If my interpretations to prophecy don't make sense logically, or realistically, then I rethink my interpretation until it makes sense in every way. I don't really have faith, as you call it. Any of the things I actually believe in are subject to change based on new information coming in.
1, You quote the bible as evidence of something other than a fairy tale; V.poor.
2, You are unable to understand what an energy buget is and yet think yourself capable of putting out climate models.
3, You are a prize prat.
To avoid this conclusion from all who read your words try to tell us how an energy budget works.
Sounds to me like a complete idiot called someone else one. Why should I attempt to explain how an energy budget works, when an energy budget doesn't do any work? An energy budget explains the balance of energy received and emitted by an object, such as earth. In equilibrium the object incoming and outgoing energy are balanced, and the object maintains whatever temperature it happens to be. If the object is not in equilibrium, then the object is either cooling off, or heating up. An energy budget explains the balance, or imbalance.
The model that I built does not work of off an energy budget, it explains why the budget goes negative or positive. In other words, it is an energy budget. It clearly plots changes in temperature of the earth over time, that follow what the earth actually did.
You obviously have a low opinion of people who believe in the Bible, and of people who believe we should do something about AGW. And I am both, so I'm sure that puts me way up there on your shit list. Fine with me. I actually take that as a compliment, coming from you.
The Bible is a very useful tool, for someone who wants to make it through the next several decades alive and with their families. It ain't no joke, but feel free to make a joke about it. The prophets did. They laughed at your expense quite a bit. They described you as sitting on walls, eating your own shit, as you cursed those who were preparing for their own survival. Getting to watch it all unfold in front of me is incredible.
It is very useful, though there has been a lot of misuse of the Bible over the years, including the promotion of the false God, that it predicted itself. It is still used today to promote the Jesus God by Christianity, even though the Jesus God was predicted by it. They didn't realize it though, and just tacked their own books on to the end of it. It's funny when you think about it. And then to top it off, the added their own prophecy, which predicts their own downfall, onto the very end, because they didn't know what it means either. It's so funny, you don't even get to laugh, because you realize that it's real. And here we are, both of us, rolled right into this huge bag of shit, which we have created.
I don't know about you, but I want to open up a hole somewhere, and exit this bag of shit. I'm thinking that you, being a plumber and all, understand this.
OK, so you know what an energy budget is. Let's see if you can understand the basics of heat capacity;
If the top 700m of the world's oceans absorbs 1 Zettajoule of energy extra what is the mean temperature increase over 1 year?
I guess I flunk that test, because I have no idea what the answer to your question is. And I am not interested enough to do the math, even if I knew how to do the math.
I don't really see what that has to do with understanding Global Warming or Climate Change. Though I do acknowledge that understanding how the oceans acting as a temporary heat sink are slowing down the warming trend that is occurring.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
| 16-10-2017 06:50 |
GreenMan★★★☆☆
(661) |
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
So you don't believe in evidence based sciecnce over faith then.
Now I see why you are so useless in the AGW debate.
Coming from you, that's a compliment. Thanks.
You can't convince someone of something that they are dead set against. Such is debating AGW. People like you will always be around, questioning those who know the answers, because you just can't accept reality.
Yes, actually, I do believe in evidence based science, over what you call faith. If my interpretations to prophecy don't make sense logically, or realistically, then I rethink my interpretation until it makes sense in every way. I don't really have faith, as you call it. Any of the things I actually believe in are subject to change based on new information coming in.
1, You quote the bible as evidence of something other than a fairy tale; V.poor.
2, You are unable to understand what an energy buget is and yet think yourself capable of putting out climate models.
3, You are a prize prat.
To avoid this conclusion from all who read your words try to tell us how an energy budget works.
Sounds to me like a complete idiot called someone else one. Why should I attempt to explain how an energy budget works, when an energy budget doesn't do any work? An energy budget explains the balance of energy received and emitted by an object, such as earth. In equilibrium the object incoming and outgoing energy are balanced, and the object maintains whatever temperature it happens to be. If the object is not in equilibrium, then the object is either cooling off, or heating up. An energy budget explains the balance, or imbalance.
The model that I built does not work of off an energy budget, it explains why the budget goes negative or positive. In other words, it is an energy budget. It clearly plots changes in temperature of the earth over time, that follow what the earth actually did.
You obviously have a low opinion of people who believe in the Bible, and of people who believe we should do something about AGW. And I am both, so I'm sure that puts me way up there on your shit list. Fine with me. I actually take that as a compliment, coming from you.
The Bible is a very useful tool, for someone who wants to make it through the next several decades alive and with their families. It ain't no joke, but feel free to make a joke about it. The prophets did. They laughed at your expense quite a bit. They described you as sitting on walls, eating your own shit, as you cursed those who were preparing for their own survival. Getting to watch it all unfold in front of me is incredible.
It is very useful, though there has been a lot of misuse of the Bible over the years, including the promotion of the false God, that it predicted itself. It is still used today to promote the Jesus God by Christianity, even though the Jesus God was predicted by it. They didn't realize it though, and just tacked their own books on to the end of it. It's funny when you think about it. And then to top it off, the added their own prophecy, which predicts their own downfall, onto the very end, because they didn't know what it means either. It's so funny, you don't even get to laugh, because you realize that it's real. And here we are, both of us, rolled right into this huge bag of shit, which we have created.
I don't know about you, but I want to open up a hole somewhere, and exit this bag of shit. I'm thinking that you, being a plumber and all, understand this.
OK, so you know what an energy budget is. Let's see if you can understand the basics of heat capacity;
If the top 700m of the world's oceans absorbs 1 Zettajoule of energy extra what is the mean temperature increase over 1 year?
You must have a good calculator. That number is 1 x 10^21 joules which would be 0.239 of a calorie/joule x 1 x 10^21 or 2.39 x 10^20 calories.
89,300 x 10^12 watts strike the Earth per revolution. Or in simpler terms - the amount of power that reaches the surface of the Earth is 24,805,555,555,555 calories per revolution. Let's round that off to 25 x 10^12 calories. (I add this as a reference point).
Salt water with a mass of 64 lbs/cubic foot or 2,679 lbs/meter^3. Ocean surface area of 510 million km^2 so total volume of 700 m x 510,000,000,000 = 357,000,000,000,000 cubic meters of salt water.
1,215,000 grams/m^3 or 433,755,000,000,000,000,000 grams. Say 434 x 10^18 grams.
It requires about 1 calorie to raise one gram of salt water one degree C.
434 x 10^18 grams/ 2.39 x 10^20 calories = 1.82 C as a first approximation if I didn't screw the math up.
Yeah, what Wake said.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php |
|
| 16-10-2017 18:04 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
You must have a good calculator. That number is 1 x 10^21 joules which would be 0.239 of a calorie/joule x 1 x 10^21 or 2.39 x 10^20 calories.
89,300 x 10^12 watts strike the Earth per revolution. Or in simpler terms - the amount of power that reaches the surface of the Earth is 24,805,555,555,555 calories per revolution. Let's round that off to 25 x 10^12 calories. (I add this as a reference point).
Salt water with a mass of 64 lbs/cubic foot or 2,679 lbs/meter^3. Ocean surface area of 510 million km^2 so total volume of 700 m x 510,000,000,000 = 357,000,000,000,000 cubic meters of salt water.
1,215,000 grams/m^3 or 433,755,000,000,000,000,000 grams. Say 434 x 10^18 grams.
It requires about 1 calorie to raise one gram of salt water one degree C.
434 x 10^18 grams/ 2.39 x 10^20 calories = 1.82 C as a first approximation if I didn't screw the math up.
Yeah, what Wake said.
You don't even know why I added the power output of the Sun and you had to post something didn't you? |
| 16-10-2017 21:02 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
So you don't believe in evidence based sciecnce over faith then.
Now I see why you are so useless in the AGW debate.
Coming from you, that's a compliment. Thanks.
You can't convince someone of something that they are dead set against. Such is debating AGW. People like you will always be around, questioning those who know the answers, because you just can't accept reality.
Yes, actually, I do believe in evidence based science, over what you call faith. If my interpretations to prophecy don't make sense logically, or realistically, then I rethink my interpretation until it makes sense in every way. I don't really have faith, as you call it. Any of the things I actually believe in are subject to change based on new information coming in.
1, You quote the bible as evidence of something other than a fairy tale; V.poor.
2, You are unable to understand what an energy buget is and yet think yourself capable of putting out climate models.
3, You are a prize prat.
To avoid this conclusion from all who read your words try to tell us how an energy budget works.
Sounds to me like a complete idiot called someone else one. Why should I attempt to explain how an energy budget works, when an energy budget doesn't do any work? An energy budget explains the balance of energy received and emitted by an object, such as earth. In equilibrium the object incoming and outgoing energy are balanced, and the object maintains whatever temperature it happens to be. If the object is not in equilibrium, then the object is either cooling off, or heating up. An energy budget explains the balance, or imbalance.
The model that I built does not work of off an energy budget, it explains why the budget goes negative or positive. In other words, it is an energy budget. It clearly plots changes in temperature of the earth over time, that follow what the earth actually did.
You obviously have a low opinion of people who believe in the Bible, and of people who believe we should do something about AGW. And I am both, so I'm sure that puts me way up there on your shit list. Fine with me. I actually take that as a compliment, coming from you.
The Bible is a very useful tool, for someone who wants to make it through the next several decades alive and with their families. It ain't no joke, but feel free to make a joke about it. The prophets did. They laughed at your expense quite a bit. They described you as sitting on walls, eating your own shit, as you cursed those who were preparing for their own survival. Getting to watch it all unfold in front of me is incredible.
It is very useful, though there has been a lot of misuse of the Bible over the years, including the promotion of the false God, that it predicted itself. It is still used today to promote the Jesus God by Christianity, even though the Jesus God was predicted by it. They didn't realize it though, and just tacked their own books on to the end of it. It's funny when you think about it. And then to top it off, the added their own prophecy, which predicts their own downfall, onto the very end, because they didn't know what it means either. It's so funny, you don't even get to laugh, because you realize that it's real. And here we are, both of us, rolled right into this huge bag of shit, which we have created.
I don't know about you, but I want to open up a hole somewhere, and exit this bag of shit. I'm thinking that you, being a plumber and all, understand this.
OK, so you know what an energy budget is. Let's see if you can understand the basics of heat capacity;
If the top 700m of the world's oceans absorbs 1 Zettajoule of energy extra what is the mean temperature increase over 1 year?
You must have a good calculator. That number is 1 x 10^21 joules which would be 0.239 of a calorie/joule x 1 x 10^21 or 2.39 x 10^20 calories.
89,300 x 10^12 watts strike the Earth per revolution. Or in simpler terms - the amount of power that reaches the surface of the Earth is 24,805,555,555,555 calories per revolution. Let's round that off to 25 x 10^12 calories. (I add this as a reference point).
Salt water with a mass of 64 lbs/cubic foot or 2,679 lbs/meter^3. Ocean surface area of 510 million km^2 so total volume of 700 m x 510,000,000,000 = 357,000,000,000,000 cubic meters of salt water.
1,215,000 grams/m^3 or 433,755,000,000,000,000,000 grams. Say 434 x 10^18 grams.
It requires about 1 calorie to raise one gram of salt water one degree C.
434 x 10^18 grams/ 2.39 x 10^20 calories = 1.82 C as a first approximation if I didn't screw the math up.
Aren't you forgetting something?
Not all the energy from the Sun that is striking the Earth is absorbed. Much of it is reflected.
The ocean is also LOSING energy just as fast as it's gaining it.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 16-10-2017 21:03 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21597) |
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
So you don't believe in evidence based sciecnce over faith then.
Now I see why you are so useless in the AGW debate.
Coming from you, that's a compliment. Thanks.
You can't convince someone of something that they are dead set against. Such is debating AGW. People like you will always be around, questioning those who know the answers, because you just can't accept reality.
Yes, actually, I do believe in evidence based science, over what you call faith. If my interpretations to prophecy don't make sense logically, or realistically, then I rethink my interpretation until it makes sense in every way. I don't really have faith, as you call it. Any of the things I actually believe in are subject to change based on new information coming in.
1, You quote the bible as evidence of something other than a fairy tale; V.poor.
2, You are unable to understand what an energy buget is and yet think yourself capable of putting out climate models.
3, You are a prize prat.
To avoid this conclusion from all who read your words try to tell us how an energy budget works.
Sounds to me like a complete idiot called someone else one. Why should I attempt to explain how an energy budget works, when an energy budget doesn't do any work? An energy budget explains the balance of energy received and emitted by an object, such as earth. In equilibrium the object incoming and outgoing energy are balanced, and the object maintains whatever temperature it happens to be. If the object is not in equilibrium, then the object is either cooling off, or heating up. An energy budget explains the balance, or imbalance.
The model that I built does not work of off an energy budget, it explains why the budget goes negative or positive. In other words, it is an energy budget. It clearly plots changes in temperature of the earth over time, that follow what the earth actually did.
You obviously have a low opinion of people who believe in the Bible, and of people who believe we should do something about AGW. And I am both, so I'm sure that puts me way up there on your shit list. Fine with me. I actually take that as a compliment, coming from you.
The Bible is a very useful tool, for someone who wants to make it through the next several decades alive and with their families. It ain't no joke, but feel free to make a joke about it. The prophets did. They laughed at your expense quite a bit. They described you as sitting on walls, eating your own shit, as you cursed those who were preparing for their own survival. Getting to watch it all unfold in front of me is incredible.
It is very useful, though there has been a lot of misuse of the Bible over the years, including the promotion of the false God, that it predicted itself. It is still used today to promote the Jesus God by Christianity, even though the Jesus God was predicted by it. They didn't realize it though, and just tacked their own books on to the end of it. It's funny when you think about it. And then to top it off, the added their own prophecy, which predicts their own downfall, onto the very end, because they didn't know what it means either. It's so funny, you don't even get to laugh, because you realize that it's real. And here we are, both of us, rolled right into this huge bag of shit, which we have created.
I don't know about you, but I want to open up a hole somewhere, and exit this bag of shit. I'm thinking that you, being a plumber and all, understand this.
OK, so you know what an energy budget is. Let's see if you can understand the basics of heat capacity;
If the top 700m of the world's oceans absorbs 1 Zettajoule of energy extra what is the mean temperature increase over 1 year?
I guess I flunk that test, because I have no idea what the answer to your question is. And I am not interested enough to do the math, even if I knew how to do the math.
I don't really see what that has to do with understanding Global Warming or Climate Change. Though I do acknowledge that understanding how the oceans acting as a temporary heat sink are slowing down the warming trend that is occurring.
You don't know the temperature of the Earth. You don't know if it is warming, cooling, or just staying the same.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 17-10-2017 21:52 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
So you don't believe in evidence based sciecnce over faith then.
Now I see why you are so useless in the AGW debate.
Coming from you, that's a compliment. Thanks.
You can't convince someone of something that they are dead set against. Such is debating AGW. People like you will always be around, questioning those who know the answers, because you just can't accept reality.
Yes, actually, I do believe in evidence based science, over what you call faith. If my interpretations to prophecy don't make sense logically, or realistically, then I rethink my interpretation until it makes sense in every way. I don't really have faith, as you call it. Any of the things I actually believe in are subject to change based on new information coming in.
1, You quote the bible as evidence of something other than a fairy tale; V.poor.
2, You are unable to understand what an energy buget is and yet think yourself capable of putting out climate models.
3, You are a prize prat.
To avoid this conclusion from all who read your words try to tell us how an energy budget works.
Sounds to me like a complete idiot called someone else one. Why should I attempt to explain how an energy budget works, when an energy budget doesn't do any work? An energy budget explains the balance of energy received and emitted by an object, such as earth. In equilibrium the object incoming and outgoing energy are balanced, and the object maintains whatever temperature it happens to be. If the object is not in equilibrium, then the object is either cooling off, or heating up. An energy budget explains the balance, or imbalance.
The model that I built does not work of off an energy budget, it explains why the budget goes negative or positive. In other words, it is an energy budget. It clearly plots changes in temperature of the earth over time, that follow what the earth actually did.
You obviously have a low opinion of people who believe in the Bible, and of people who believe we should do something about AGW. And I am both, so I'm sure that puts me way up there on your shit list. Fine with me. I actually take that as a compliment, coming from you.
The Bible is a very useful tool, for someone who wants to make it through the next several decades alive and with their families. It ain't no joke, but feel free to make a joke about it. The prophets did. They laughed at your expense quite a bit. They described you as sitting on walls, eating your own shit, as you cursed those who were preparing for their own survival. Getting to watch it all unfold in front of me is incredible.
It is very useful, though there has been a lot of misuse of the Bible over the years, including the promotion of the false God, that it predicted itself. It is still used today to promote the Jesus God by Christianity, even though the Jesus God was predicted by it. They didn't realize it though, and just tacked their own books on to the end of it. It's funny when you think about it. And then to top it off, the added their own prophecy, which predicts their own downfall, onto the very end, because they didn't know what it means either. It's so funny, you don't even get to laugh, because you realize that it's real. And here we are, both of us, rolled right into this huge bag of shit, which we have created.
I don't know about you, but I want to open up a hole somewhere, and exit this bag of shit. I'm thinking that you, being a plumber and all, understand this.
OK, so you know what an energy budget is. Let's see if you can understand the basics of heat capacity;
If the top 700m of the world's oceans absorbs 1 Zettajoule of energy extra what is the mean temperature increase over 1 year?
You must have a good calculator. That number is 1 x 10^21 joules which would be 0.239 of a calorie/joule x 1 x 10^21 or 2.39 x 10^20 calories.
89,300 x 10^12 watts strike the Earth per revolution. Or in simpler terms - the amount of power that reaches the surface of the Earth is 24,805,555,555,555 calories per revolution. Let's round that off to 25 x 10^12 calories. (I add this as a reference point).
Salt water with a mass of 64 lbs/cubic foot or 2,679 lbs/meter^3. Ocean surface area of 510 million km^2 so total volume of 700 m x 510,000,000,000 = 357,000,000,000,000 cubic meters of salt water.
1,215,000 grams/m^3 or 433,755,000,000,000,000,000 grams. Say 434 x 10^18 grams.
It requires about 1 calorie to raise one gram of salt water one degree C.
434 x 10^18 grams/ 2.39 x 10^20 calories = 1.82 C as a first approximation if I didn't screw the math up.
Well, I think you did screw up the maths somewhere but them you are using Imperial units. So I am too frightened of them to go any where near.
Try it with SI. It will astonish you how easy and quick it is. And give a different number. |
| 17-10-2017 21:54 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
So you don't believe in evidence based sciecnce over faith then.
Now I see why you are so useless in the AGW debate.
Coming from you, that's a compliment. Thanks.
You can't convince someone of something that they are dead set against. Such is debating AGW. People like you will always be around, questioning those who know the answers, because you just can't accept reality.
Yes, actually, I do believe in evidence based science, over what you call faith. If my interpretations to prophecy don't make sense logically, or realistically, then I rethink my interpretation until it makes sense in every way. I don't really have faith, as you call it. Any of the things I actually believe in are subject to change based on new information coming in.
1, You quote the bible as evidence of something other than a fairy tale; V.poor.
2, You are unable to understand what an energy buget is and yet think yourself capable of putting out climate models.
3, You are a prize prat.
To avoid this conclusion from all who read your words try to tell us how an energy budget works.
Sounds to me like a complete idiot called someone else one. Why should I attempt to explain how an energy budget works, when an energy budget doesn't do any work? An energy budget explains the balance of energy received and emitted by an object, such as earth. In equilibrium the object incoming and outgoing energy are balanced, and the object maintains whatever temperature it happens to be. If the object is not in equilibrium, then the object is either cooling off, or heating up. An energy budget explains the balance, or imbalance.
The model that I built does not work of off an energy budget, it explains why the budget goes negative or positive. In other words, it is an energy budget. It clearly plots changes in temperature of the earth over time, that follow what the earth actually did.
You obviously have a low opinion of people who believe in the Bible, and of people who believe we should do something about AGW. And I am both, so I'm sure that puts me way up there on your shit list. Fine with me. I actually take that as a compliment, coming from you.
The Bible is a very useful tool, for someone who wants to make it through the next several decades alive and with their families. It ain't no joke, but feel free to make a joke about it. The prophets did. They laughed at your expense quite a bit. They described you as sitting on walls, eating your own shit, as you cursed those who were preparing for their own survival. Getting to watch it all unfold in front of me is incredible.
It is very useful, though there has been a lot of misuse of the Bible over the years, including the promotion of the false God, that it predicted itself. It is still used today to promote the Jesus God by Christianity, even though the Jesus God was predicted by it. They didn't realize it though, and just tacked their own books on to the end of it. It's funny when you think about it. And then to top it off, the added their own prophecy, which predicts their own downfall, onto the very end, because they didn't know what it means either. It's so funny, you don't even get to laugh, because you realize that it's real. And here we are, both of us, rolled right into this huge bag of shit, which we have created.
I don't know about you, but I want to open up a hole somewhere, and exit this bag of shit. I'm thinking that you, being a plumber and all, understand this.
OK, so you know what an energy budget is. Let's see if you can understand the basics of heat capacity;
If the top 700m of the world's oceans absorbs 1 Zettajoule of energy extra what is the mean temperature increase over 1 year?
I guess I flunk that test, because I have no idea what the answer to your question is. And I am not interested enough to do the math, even if I knew how to do the math.
I don't really see what that has to do with understanding Global Warming or Climate Change. Though I do acknowledge that understanding how the oceans acting as a temporary heat sink are slowing down the warming trend that is occurring.
If you can just talk through the maths it would do.
But not understanding how much of a heat sink the oceans are or how much of a delay they thus cause in the temperature response to heat input does mean you are utterly unable to model the system. |
| 18-10-2017 00:15 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
So you don't believe in evidence based sciecnce over faith then.
Now I see why you are so useless in the AGW debate.
Coming from you, that's a compliment. Thanks.
You can't convince someone of something that they are dead set against. Such is debating AGW. People like you will always be around, questioning those who know the answers, because you just can't accept reality.
Yes, actually, I do believe in evidence based science, over what you call faith. If my interpretations to prophecy don't make sense logically, or realistically, then I rethink my interpretation until it makes sense in every way. I don't really have faith, as you call it. Any of the things I actually believe in are subject to change based on new information coming in.
1, You quote the bible as evidence of something other than a fairy tale; V.poor.
2, You are unable to understand what an energy buget is and yet think yourself capable of putting out climate models.
3, You are a prize prat.
To avoid this conclusion from all who read your words try to tell us how an energy budget works.
Sounds to me like a complete idiot called someone else one. Why should I attempt to explain how an energy budget works, when an energy budget doesn't do any work? An energy budget explains the balance of energy received and emitted by an object, such as earth. In equilibrium the object incoming and outgoing energy are balanced, and the object maintains whatever temperature it happens to be. If the object is not in equilibrium, then the object is either cooling off, or heating up. An energy budget explains the balance, or imbalance.
The model that I built does not work of off an energy budget, it explains why the budget goes negative or positive. In other words, it is an energy budget. It clearly plots changes in temperature of the earth over time, that follow what the earth actually did.
You obviously have a low opinion of people who believe in the Bible, and of people who believe we should do something about AGW. And I am both, so I'm sure that puts me way up there on your shit list. Fine with me. I actually take that as a compliment, coming from you.
The Bible is a very useful tool, for someone who wants to make it through the next several decades alive and with their families. It ain't no joke, but feel free to make a joke about it. The prophets did. They laughed at your expense quite a bit. They described you as sitting on walls, eating your own shit, as you cursed those who were preparing for their own survival. Getting to watch it all unfold in front of me is incredible.
It is very useful, though there has been a lot of misuse of the Bible over the years, including the promotion of the false God, that it predicted itself. It is still used today to promote the Jesus God by Christianity, even though the Jesus God was predicted by it. They didn't realize it though, and just tacked their own books on to the end of it. It's funny when you think about it. And then to top it off, the added their own prophecy, which predicts their own downfall, onto the very end, because they didn't know what it means either. It's so funny, you don't even get to laugh, because you realize that it's real. And here we are, both of us, rolled right into this huge bag of shit, which we have created.
I don't know about you, but I want to open up a hole somewhere, and exit this bag of shit. I'm thinking that you, being a plumber and all, understand this.
OK, so you know what an energy budget is. Let's see if you can understand the basics of heat capacity;
If the top 700m of the world's oceans absorbs 1 Zettajoule of energy extra what is the mean temperature increase over 1 year?
You must have a good calculator. That number is 1 x 10^21 joules which would be 0.239 of a calorie/joule x 1 x 10^21 or 2.39 x 10^20 calories.
89,300 x 10^12 watts strike the Earth per revolution. Or in simpler terms - the amount of power that reaches the surface of the Earth is 24,805,555,555,555 calories per revolution. Let's round that off to 25 x 10^12 calories. (I add this as a reference point).
Salt water with a mass of 64 lbs/cubic foot or 2,679 lbs/meter^3. Ocean surface area of 510 million km^2 so total volume of 700 m x 510,000,000,000 = 357,000,000,000,000 cubic meters of salt water.
1,215,000 grams/m^3 or 433,755,000,000,000,000,000 grams. Say 434 x 10^18 grams.
It requires about 1 calorie to raise one gram of salt water one degree C.
434 x 10^18 grams/ 2.39 x 10^20 calories = 1.82 C as a first approximation if I didn't screw the math up.
Well, I think you did screw up the maths somewhere but them you are using Imperial units. So I am too frightened of them to go any where near.
Try it with SI. It will astonish you how easy and quick it is. And give a different number.
This is still a complex equation:
1 zetajoule is 1 x 10^21 joules.
total surface area of the oceans are 510,000,000,000 meters = 52 x 10^10 square meters or 700 x 52 x 10^10 = 364 x 10^12 cubic meters
Since raising the heat on any substance goes hand in hand with its mass we have to convert water to weight.
364 x 10^12 cubic meters x 1024 kg/m^3 = 372.7 x 10^15 kg. (rounded off for writing purposes only)
Energy necessary to raise one kg of salt water one degree = 3900 joules.
372.7 x 10^15/1 x 10^21 = .000372736 degrees C (or since it is SI units - Kelvin.)
Indeed I made a dozy of a mistake.
Now the point I was trying to make is that some 89,300 watts strike the Earth's surface in 24 hours this is ~13 x 10^8 joules.
Were the TOTAL output of the Sun put into simply warming that small section of sea water it would require over 2 billion years to generate one zetajoule.
This ought to be a red flag warning to people that don't understand the climate. It is PURELY an atmospheric function. |