Global warming and the end

[eclipsenow]

If instead of relying on the false confidence of "peer-reviewed" papers, you actually use your own mind a little, you will see that in the charts I posted, which [were, by the way, released by the Goddard EOS Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC,)] you will see that Co2 is already absorbing well over two-thirds of the total radiance is is capable of absorbing at any concentration. (In the wavenumber range of 525 to 725)

But in the same charts you will also see that a change in the concentration of water can change the amount of radiation absorbed by the atmosphere much more than the total additional absorbtion available to Co2 in any quantity.


These facts are well known to physicists and engineers, but are largely ignored by global warming alarmists, even though their papers are "peer-reviewed."

This is a variation of the myth presented here.
Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
“Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. This is part of the difficulty with the public and the media in understanding that 95% of greenhouse gases are water vapour. The public understand it, in that if you get a fall evening or spring evening and the sky is clear the heat will escape and the temperature will drop and you get frost. If there is a cloud cover, the heat is trapped by water vapour as a greenhouse gas and the temperature stays quite warm. If you go to In Salah in southern Algeria, they recorded at one point a daytime or noon high of 52 degrees Celsius – by midnight that night it was -3.6 degree Celsius. […] That was caused because there is no, or very little, water vapour in the atmosphere and it is a demonstration of water vapour as the most important greenhouse gas.” (Tim Ball)

(Tim Ball is not a climatologist by the way, something he likes to lie about).

However, the answer is:

Increased CO2 makes more water vapor, a greenhouse gas which amplifies warming
Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works


Next?

Oh, this claim.

If "global warming" causes the desert areas of the earth to expand, the areas with very little water will expand, producing a counter effect that will balance the temperature rise. Such an expansion of deserts is happening now, both in southwestern United States and northwestern Brazil, as well as in Australia. This is one of the reasons why the earth is not getting warmer, even though the levels of Co2 are rising.

Evidence for even one of your claims here? Like: only deserts with little water are expanding (they're not, some of these deserts used to have enough water to supply some mild vegetation and bushes). Oh, and you need to prove your assertion that the earth is not getting warmer, it is. Last year broke all kinds of records.

Next?

 

[Biblewriter]

This is a variation of the myth presented here.
Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
“Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. This is part of the difficulty with the public and the media in understanding that 95% of greenhouse gases are water vapour. The public understand it, in that if you get a fall evening or spring evening and the sky is clear the heat will escape and the temperature will drop and you get frost. If there is a cloud cover, the heat is trapped by water vapour as a greenhouse gas and the temperature stays quite warm. If you go to In Salah in southern Algeria, they recorded at one point a daytime or noon high of 52 degrees Celsius – by midnight that night it was -3.6 degree Celsius. […] That was caused because there is no, or very little, water vapour in the atmosphere and it is a demonstration of water vapour as the most important greenhouse gas.” (Tim Ball)

(Tim Ball is not a climatologist by the way, something he likes to lie about).

However, the answer is:

Increased CO2 makes more water vapor, a greenhouse gas which amplifies warming
Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse effect works


Next?

Oh, this claim.



Evidence for even one of your claims here?

Next?

this paper ignores the fact that If "global warming" causes the desert areas of the earth to expand, the areas with very little water will expand, producing a counter effect that will balance the temperature rise. Such an expansion of deserts is happening now, both in southwestern United States and northwestern Brazil, as well as in Australia. This is one of the reasons why the earth is not getting warmer, even though the levels of Co2 are rising.

 

[eclipsenow]

this paper ignores the fact that If "global warming" causes the desert areas of the earth to expand, the areas with very little water will expand, producing a counter effect that will balance the temperature rise. Such an expansion of deserts is happening now, both in southwestern United States and northwestern Brazil, as well as in Australia. This is one of the reasons why the earth is not getting warmer, even though the levels of Co2 are rising.

Desertification has many causes. The whole premise of your argument is undermined by this fact. One of the main causes of desertification has been our interruption of the normal 'moving herds' grazing cycle. It turns out savannah's were more dependent on vast, moving herds of cattle than we initially thought. It's to do with manure being an important, and much faster, biological agent adding nutrients and life to the soil which can then retain more water. 'Moving herds' could be one of the main strategies to fight global warming, reverse desertification, and Increasing desertification is not the main concern of global warming, but could be a nasty side-effect in some regions.

Grass Fed Beef and Global Warming | Small Footprint Family

Also, the earth is warming so just repeating an incorrect soundbyte without any justification doesn't really add to the credibility of your argument.

 

[Biblewriter]

Desertification has many causes. The whole premise of your argument is undermined by this fact. One of the main causes of desertification has been our interruption of the normal 'moving herds' grazing cycle. It turns out savannah's were more dependent on vast, moving herds of cattle than we initially thought. It's to do with manure being an important, and much faster, biological agent adding nutrients and life to the soil which can then retain more water. 'Moving herds' could be one of the main strategies to fight global warming, reverse desertification, and Increasing desertification is not the main concern of global warming, but could be a nasty side-effect in some regions.

Grass Fed Beef and Global Warming | Small Footprint Family

Also, the earth is warming so just repeating an incorrect soundbyte without any justification doesn't really add to the credibility of your argument.

I have already posted the proof that the temperature data [presented here is bogus, being willfully manipulated since around 1990.

 

[eclipsenow]

I have already posted the proof that the temperature data [presented here is bogus, being willfully manipulated since around 1990.

No you haven't. Want to try again?

 

[Codger]

Such a fact-filled and insightful post from an engineer! ( )

Seriously, Codger, what has happened to that sharp wit that used to be able to analyse a situation and reply so precisely on target.

You might have said some absolute rubbish about global warming = Atheist conspiracy before, but hey, I replied to that didn't I? And you disproved my reply how, exactly, by just repeating your rubbish argument? (global warming = atheist conspiracy because a few climatologists might be atheists).

Do you even remember how I replied? What I pointed out for your benefit? Or are you now an internet troll as well as clumsy in your arguments?

But it's all an atheist conspiracy!!! Codger said so, on a Christian INTERNET FORUM, so it must be true!!!


"Oh the humanity". How you've crashed and burned Codger!

This country is becoming more and more divided as time goes by - God is doing this. He is separating the sheep from the goats. When will Jesus return? When this process is complete world wide.

In the book of Revelation people are known by the mark on their forehead. There are only two classifications - people of God and people who are not of God - very simple. God is not willing than any should perish and so he puts pressure on them in the form of judgment of their corruption.

So which side of this are the secular Humanists on? God's side or Satan's side? Well what are the secular Humanist doctrines?

The liberal party in the USA is based in Secular Humanism
They support and promote abortion
They promote same sex marriage.
They promote gay and lesbian rights.
They promote massive give away projects - economic collapse.
They are anti military - allowing any Hitler to walk in and take over.
Since they are atheists they find it easy to lie - the end justifies the means
They promote the global warming hoax - which is power through fear mongering.

So why are you camping with the goats? No one can be a Secular Humanist and be a christian - it's an oxymoron. You have been suckered into the political machine of the leftists.

 

[Biblewriter]

No you haven't. Want to try again?

You know, this tactic really gets old, just deny all evidence you cannot answer. That's what you do in the discussions about prophecy, and that's what you do here.

 

[eclipsenow]

This country is becoming more and more divided as time goes by - God is doing this. He is separating the sheep from the goats. When will Jesus return? When this process is complete world wide.

The division spoken of in the bible is most often that of judgment day, but then there is also the division that naturall occurs because a Christian stands up for Christ and the gospel and teaches that all humans are sinners who need to repent. I haven't lost any of this.

In the book of Revelation people are known by the mark on their forehead. There are only two classifications - people of God and people who are not of God - very simple. God is not willing than any should perish and so he puts pressure on them in the form of judgment of their corruption.

Yes, the good news we are also marked for God. It's symbolic of being kept safe through the seal of his Holy Spirit.

So which side of this are the secular Humanists on? God's side or Satan's side? Well what are the secular Humanist doctrines?

The liberal party in the USA is based in Secular Humanism
They support and promote abortion
They promote same sex marriage.
They promote gay and lesbian rights.
They promote massive give away projects - economic collapse.
They are anti military - allowing any Hitler to walk in and take over.
Since they are atheists they find it easy to lie - the end justifies the means
They promote the global warming hoax - which is power through fear mongering.

Not so fast sunshine. Global warming is not political. You do not get to reject it on political grounds because it is a scientific fact, not some subjective political subjective feeling. Your reference to slightly left wing politics as 'give away projects = economic collapse' is also a bit of a give away of your worldview and rationale for rejecting global warming. While this is getting of the topic a bit, I'm quite sure your banking crisis which lead to the GFC was a result of your lending practices not being regulated enough, and an unruly marketplace practiciing unethical things. The 'right' is not always RIGHT! Instead, I see Western societies as on a bit of a dial. Your dial is turned maybe 1% more to the right in terms of government spending / GDP, and yet we manage to have universal healthcare through our medicare scheme! And so many republicans were worrying that if Obama got in for a second turn, they'd flee 'socialist' America and come here!

Ha ha! Wow. How uninformed. We have 'Obama care plus' and enjoy it for the gift it is to our society. Why shouldn't the rich pay a little extra tax so a poor, blind single mother can have relatively cheap surgery to restore her eyesight and make her a better mother to her kids? So while your society has only 1% less government spending per unit of GDP than Australia, we manage to get universal healthcare which is a more socially just level of health care than the absolute administrative nightmare and wastage of your system. Seriously, you guys pay about 3 or 4 times what we pay for health care, and yet have lower life expectancies.

So how dare you dump 'over spending' in with all those other leftist agenda items? How dare you try to simplisitcally and thoughtlessly lump in a socially just medical policy with things that are obviously unChristian? And how dare you equate the physics and chemistry of climate change in with these items as well, as if it were all some Communist conspiracy against the 'obviously' righteous Republicans? That kind of simplistic, flag saluting self-righteousness makes me sick.

So why are you camping with the goats? No one can be a Secular Humanist and be a christian - it's an oxymoron. You have been suckered into the political machine of the leftists.

Because... .... the physics and chemistry of global warming has exactly ZERO to do with gay marriage. Nada. Zip. Zero.

It has ZERO to do with your society being about 1% more to the 'right' than ours. It has ZERO to do with gay and lesbian rights. It's to do with the known heat-trapping action of Co2 and how that is affecting our climate, and how it could be sending hundreds of millions, maybe even billions, of the poor to their deaths. It has to do with this being a bigger economic threat than WW1 and WW2 and the Cold War combined. it has to do with prevention being far, far cheaper than the 'cure'.

 

[eclipsenow]

You know, this tactic really gets old, just deny all evidence you cannot answer. That's what you do in the discussions about prophecy, and that's what you do here.

If you can't be bothered to provide valid credible evidence to back up your sad old theories about ancient maps and growing deserts, then don't cry foul to me. It's your job to prove your argument, not mine. Go do some homework for once and stop whining that I'm ignoring your (currently) non-existent arguments!

 

[Biblewriter]

If you can't be bothered to provide valid credible evidence to back up your sad old theories about ancient maps and growing deserts, then don't cry foul to me. It's your job to prove your argument, not mine. Go do some homework for once and stop whining that I'm ignoring your (currently) non-existent arguments!

I told you exactly where to get a copy of the book where I found the ancient map. It has not, at least to my knowledge, been posted on the internet.

The growing deserts in Brazil are a matter of my own personal knowledge, for I just came from there, and drove for days through regions of trees totally bare of leaves because it had not rained in years. I lost count of the number of basically mummified dead cows I saw on or near the highway as we passed. All this area was farmland only quite recently.

I also quite recently drove through a large area of once prosperous farmland in southwestern United States, now basically reduced to desert. I have read about the same problems in Australia and Africa, but have not personally seen it..

 

[eclipsenow]

I told you exactly where to get a copy of the book where I found the ancient map. It has not, at least to my knowledge, been posted on the internet.

The growing deserts in Brazil are a matter of my own personal knowledge, for I just came from there, and drove for days through regions of trees totally bare of leaves because it had not rained in years. I lost count of the number of basically mummified dead cows I saw on or near the highway as we passed. All this area was farmland only quite recently.

I also quite recently drove through a large area of once prosperous farmland in southwestern United States, now basically reduced to desert. I have read about the same problems in Australia and Africa, but have not personally seen it..

1. Ancient maps
I'm not spending my hard earned money to do your arguments for you. I've told you this before. If there was such a conclusive, stunning piece of historical evidence that overwhelmingly demonstrated a completely different history of earth, I'm sure I would have heard about it. For now I can only assume there is no such thing. This is typical. Creationists take a tiny quirk of history or data and over-reach, over-exaggerate and stretch in the vain hope of disproving the peer-reviewed data: all because they mistake the genre of the first chapters of Genesis. Their sheer desperation makes them unreliable. Not that I'm totally sold on evolution all the way: I like John Lennox's approach. But I'm not threatened if science does totally prove evolution, because Genesis is simply not talking about how the world was made, but why, and by whom, and to what purpose.

Once again, it is YOUR JOB to prove your sad, tired old arguments. As it stands now, your 'old maps' theory sounds a lot like the "Greenland used to be Green" myth.

The skeptic argument...
Greenland was green
“CfA's Sallie Baliunas […] refers to the medieval Viking sagas as examples of unusual warming around 1003 A.D. ‘The Vikings established colonies in Greenland at the beginning of the second millennium, but they died out several hundred years later when the climate turned colder,’ she notes.” (William Cromie)
What the science says...
The Greenland ice sheet has existed for at least 400,000 years. There may have been regions of Greenland that were 'greener' than today but this was not a global phenomenon.

2. Deserts
You seem to be confused. I'm not disputing deserts are growing around the world due to a whole variety of factors... maybe you were so filled with creationist indignation you didn't grasp that from my last post? I'm disputing your particularly disingenuous reaching (yet again) from growing deserts to reduced global warming. You would need to demonstrate mathematically how increased deserts would reduce the albedo of the earth to the tune of 1 watt of increased Co2 heat trapped per cubic metre of atmosphere! That's how serious global warming is: 1 watt of energy per cubic metre of atmosphere. So, once you've run your calculations and displayed them here, I'll take them across to some climate experts I know and get their peer-reviewed feedback. (I'm not a scientist number cruncher myself, but read chunks of the peer-reviewed material and know enough to detect straw-man arguments, cherry-picked data and outright lies).

If you want some actual hope for the climate and reversing desertification, then please watch this amazing 20 minute TED talk which outlines how moving herds could save many of our grasslands and Savannah's.


Allan Savory: How to fight desertification and reverse climate change | Video on TED.com

 

[eclipsenow]

Meanwhile, for everyone else, Global Warming is not eschatology. That is, it is, but only in the sense that it is something awful that we can expect in these 'Last Days' since Acts 2 and Hebrews 1... that is, part of creation in chaos that we read generally described in Revelation and part of the famines Jesus warned about. There's nothing specific in the bible about it. It was not predicted. It is not on any timetable. It is just one more thing in our catalogue of sad and irresponsible things we have done to God's world and each other.

By the way, just a reminder: Bill McKibben (featured in the movie below) is a Christian. Did you all know that? I trust this man.

Do the Math - The Movie | Official Trailer - YouTube!

 

[Codger]

It seems that every event in the news is now caused by "Global warming." recently this includes the terrorist attack in Boston.

Tom Friedman - columnist for the ultra liberal (Secular Humanist) New York Times was recently quoted...

"Until we fully understand what turned two brothers who allegedly perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombings into murderers, it is hard to make any policy recommendation other than this: We need to redouble our efforts to make America stronger and healthier so it remains a vibrant counterexample to whatever bigoted ideology may have gripped these young men. So what to do? We need a more 'radical center' -- one much more willing to suggest radically new ideas to raise revenues, not the 'split-the-difference-between-the-same-old-options center.' And the best place to start is with a carbon tax."

First the carbon tax and later a global tax. All this to control the imaginary, non existent, global warming "bogey man," who is destroying the planet. Corporations are greedy because they seek profit. Politicians seek money to save the world - so they are not greedy. Last time I took account - greed is a universal characteristic of ungodly humanity.

 

[eclipsenow]

It seems that every event in the news is now caused by "Global warming." recently this includes the terrorist attack in Boston.

Tom Friedman - columnist for the ultra liberal (Secular Humanist) New York Times was recently quoted...

"Until we fully understand what turned two brothers who allegedly perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombings into murderers, it is hard to make any policy recommendation other than this: We need to redouble our efforts to make America stronger and healthier so it remains a vibrant counterexample to whatever bigoted ideology may have gripped these young men. So what to do? We need a more 'radical center' -- one much more willing to suggest radically new ideas to raise revenues, not the 'split-the-difference-between-the-same-old-options center.' And the best place to start is with a carbon tax."

First the carbon tax and later a global tax. All this to control the imaginary, non existent, global warming "bogey man," who is destroying the planet. Corporations are greedy because they seek profit. Politicians seek money to save the world - so they are not greedy. Last time I took account - greed is a universal characteristic of ungodly humanity.

Wow, thanks so much for your comprehensive post politely answering each of my previous arguments! Your attention to detail and dedication to a polite engagement with the facts are much appreciated!

Basically, you are right in one sense. Governments DO have to step up to solve this because the marketplace has not done the job. Governments have the job of ensuring public infrastructure is up to the job of maintaining civil society, and that pollution and environmental abuse by corporations does not threaten the project of civilisation itself. As George Monbiot said recently, the carbon markets have failed.

In other ages, states sought to seize as much power as they could. Today, the self-hating state renounces its powers. Governments anathematise governance. They declare their role redundant and illegitimate. They launch furious assaults on their own branches, seeking wherever possible to lop them off.

This self-mutilation is a response to the fact that power has shifted. States now operate at the behest of others. Deregulation, privatisation, the shrinking of the scope, scale and spending of the state: these are now seen as the only legitimate policies. The corporations and billionaires to whom governments defer will have it no other way.

This faith in the markets is misplaced: only governments can save our living planet | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

Meanwhile, think all that snow across the top of the USA defies climate science? Think again.

Just because there’s excessive snow somewhere does not mean global temperatures are down. “It turns out to be the eighth warmest March on record. We have now had 334 consecutive months with Global Temperatures warmer than the 20th Century average”.
Earth Day Climatology: A Warming World even thought it doesn't feel like it, sometimes? - YouTube!

To answer you more 'heart on sleeve' in the same 'polite' manner you just addressed me above: Global Warming Denialism is funded by Exxon Mobile, and fuelled by the selfishness glorified by America's Bill of Rights. That bill places the individual over society, and has warped generations of Christians into believing that 'right is right' when it comes to politics. They feel entitled to just believe whatever conspiracy theory they want, instead of the peer-reviewed scientific evidence. They feel entitled to burn fossil fuels for today's marginal profit increases even if it burns the planet. The poor? Who are they? People in Africa? Why would I, an AMERICAN CHRISTIAN, have to worry about them? As an AMERICAN Christian you appear to be immune to social concerns. The world is all about you and your rights and your profits today, not tomorrow. Your Bill has blinded you to any sense of community, any sense of the appropriateness of government intervention, and is something other Christian organisations such as the Australian Christian Lobby has criticised. As I say on my blog:


5. A Bill of Rights will enshrine selfishness over the good of the community

I would have sworn the Australian Christian Lobby would have been for a bill of human rights. Of course they are for human rights, but surprisingly they are against a bill of rights! Instead, Brigadier Jim Wallace, AM, (Ret’d) Managing Director of the Australian Christian Lobby said something to the effect that “Bills of rights enshrine selfishness over the rights of the community”, which helped me remember my conversation with my American friend about RBT. For is it really that big a deal to pull over and blow through a little tube once a year, if that? Is it really affecting my privacy that much, especially if I am a law abiding citizen and have nothing to fear? In other words, YES, I support RBT! I think it is a valuable tool for getting the idiots off the road. Drink driving is death on wheels. I have trouble imagining a society that would refuse this powerful tool for curbing a very real problem. But my American friend gasped in revulsion at the concept. He saw it as an attack on his freedom because he was taught about his ‘right to privacy’ from a very young age. But that’s not really the lesson Americans seem to learn. Instead, in this and so many other areas, they learn that the individual matters more than the community, that selfishness is good. I find that appalling.
Human Rights | Eclipse Now

Or, as the good book says:

James 2
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

 

[Biblewriter]

You would need to demonstrate mathematically how increased deserts would reduce the albedo of the earth to the tune of 1 watt of increased Co2 heat trapped per cubic metre of atmosphere! That's how serious global warming is: 1 watt of energy per cubic metre of atmosphere.

No one with even the beginning of an understanding of physics would make such a ridiculous statement. Dry air at sea level has a density of 1.16 kilograms per cubic meter. Dry air at 30 degrees Centigrade has an enthalpy of 30.2 kilojoules per kilogram. So dry air at sea level and 30 degrees Centigrade has an enthalpy of 35 kilojoules per cubic meter.

A watt is 1 joule per second. So a heat loss of 1 watt per cubic meter of atmosphere would cool the entire atmosphere to absolute zero in 35,000 seconds, even if the entire atmosphere contained as much heat as dry air at sea level and 30 degrees Centigrade (which it doesn't.)

That, by the way is less than ten hours!

 

[eclipsenow]

No one with even the beginning of an understanding of physics would make such a ridiculous statement. Dry air at sea level has a density of 1.16 kilograms per cubic meter. Dry air at 30 degrees Centigrade has an enthalpy of 30.2 kilojoules per kilogram. So dry air at sea level and 30 degrees Centigrade has an enthalpy of 35 kilojoules per cubic meter.

A watt is 1 joule per second. So a heat loss of 1 watt per cubic meter of atmosphere would cool the entire atmosphere to absolute zero in 35,000 seconds, even if the entire atmosphere contained as much heat as dry air at sea level and 30 degrees Centigrade (which it doesn't.)

That, by the way is less than ten hours!

Typical straw-manning! I did not say that the atmosphere has a total of this energy, but has an extra watt / cubic metre trapped by Co2. So when you are ready to apologise, I'll accept, and we can move on to your next misunderstanding.

(I'm no scientist, but can most often pick simple comprehension problems! )

Maybe this will help you.

Greenhouse effect schematic showing energy flows between space, the atmosphere, and Earth's surface. Energy exchanges are expressed in watts per square meter (W/m2).

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


If you look further down the page under "Natural and anthropogenic sources" you'll see a spreadsheet that shows the various radiative forcings in watts/m2 for each of our gases.

Co2 is an extra 1.70 w/m2, methane 0.5, Nitrous oxide is 0.18, for comparison.

 

[Biblewriter]

Typical straw-manning! I did not say that the atmosphere has a total of this energy, but has an extra watt / cubic metre trapped by Co2. So when you are ready to apologise, I'll accept, and we can move on to your next misunderstanding.

(I'm no scientist, but can most often pick simple comprehension problems! )

A watt is not a unit of energy. It is a unit of energy flow. It is a Joule per second. So it is physically impossible to "trap" a watt of "energy."

This is elementary beginning physics, not some elevated scientific theory.

Don't even try to argue physical facts until you learn at least a few of the basics.

Anpther example of your total lack of understanding of what you are reading is that you keep saying watts per cubic metre, when the data you are quoting is in watts per square meter, not watts per cubic metre.

 

[eclipsenow]

A watt is not a unit of energy. It is a unit of energy flow. It is a Joule per second. So it is physically impossible to "trap" a watt of "energy."

Tell that to Joseph Fourier who discovered the heat trapping properties of greenhouse gases decades before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto. So much for this being a 'left wing' conspiracy.

This is elementary beginning physics, not some elevated scientific theory. Don't even try to argue physical facts until you learn at least a few of the basics.

Well then, as long as you keep ignoring the physical facts of climate change and ignoring the data I present to you we'll have to do this the hard way. I've asked you for facts and figures. You haven't provided them, but instead quibble over terms. Incidentally, if watts are ONLY used that way, why do climate experts quote them as the unit of energy?

PS: Your post is another example of you purposely dodging the issues and refusing to answer the questions put to you.

 

[Biblewriter]

Tell that to Joseph Fourier who discovered the heat trapping properties of greenhouse gases decades before Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto. So much for this being a 'left wing' conspiracy.


Well then, as long as you keep ignoring the physical facts of climate change and ignoring the data I present to you we'll have to do this the hard way. I've asked you for facts and figures. You haven't provided them, but instead quibble over terms. Incidentally, if watts are ONLY used that way, why do climate experts quote them as the unit of energy?

PS: Your post is another example of you purposely dodging the issues and refusing to answer the questions put to you.

I am not "quibbling" over terms. I pointed out what I did to expose the fact that you do not even understand the elementary fundamentals of the science of heat, work, and energy, which, by the way, is called thermodynamics. And your response publicly proved that what you said was not a mere slip of the tongue, so to speak, but was based in a total lack of understanding even the basic fundamentals of that science.

Anyone who uses a watt as a unit of energy is wholly incompetent to calculate heat flow and balance on any subject, much less one as complicated as global temperature forecasts.

Incidently, I received my certification as a Professional Engineer and my license to practice engineering based mainly on my knowledge of thermodynamics.

 

[eclipsenow]

I am not "quibbling" over terms. I pointed out what I did to expose the fact that you do not even understand the elementary fundamentals of the science of heat, work, and energy, which, by the way, is called thermodynamics. And your response publicly proved that what you said was not a mere slip of the tongue, so to speak, but was based in a total lack of understanding even the basic fundamentals of that science.

Anyone who uses a watt as a unit of energy is wholly incompetent to calculate heat flow and balance on any subject, much less one as complicated as global temperature forecasts.

Incidently, I received my certification as a Professional Engineer and my license to practice engineering based mainly on my knowledge of thermodynamics.

Dude, I'm quite happy to admit that you know far more about science and engineering than I do. I'm also quite happy to point out that you are still avoiding the FACT that this term is used to discuss energy in the atmosphere! If you even looked up the basic WIKIPEDIA on WATT, you'd see this reference:

Based on the average total solar irradiance of 1.366 kW/m2, the total power of sunlight striking Earth's atmosphere is estimated at 174 PW (cf. Solar Constant).

Watt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Forgot to mention that did we? Oops!
You can talk down to me all you want, but it doesn't make the fact that the peer-reviewed climate scientists choose to use the term watt when discussing atmospheric energy. Are you also a qualified climatologist? I thought not. It sounds like your industry's preferred use of the term watt has become the only definition you'll use, whether or not other professions use it to describe other phenomenon.