Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.



Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 8
» Latest member: Pleuracanthus
» Forum threads: 53
» Forum posts: 123

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 4 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 4 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
Steve Case
Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet
Last Post: Sunsettommy
Yesterday, 03:12 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 2
Forum: Science Presentations
Last Post: Sunsettommy
04-16-2019, 04:05 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 4
VICTORY: Climate skeptic ...
Forum: Climate Change Politics
Last Post: Sunsettommy
04-16-2019, 03:32 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 13
Climate and Weather Carto...
Forum: Charts and Cartoons
Last Post: Sunsettommy
03-30-2019, 06:17 PM
» Replies: 27
» Views: 989
No One Can Understand My ...
Forum: Climate and Weather
Last Post: Sunsettommy
03-18-2019, 03:36 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 52
Beach" A River of Sand
Forum: Video
Last Post: Sunsettommy
03-16-2019, 10:59 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 25
Want to debate warmists, ...
Forum: Climate and Weather
Last Post: Sunsettommy
03-16-2019, 07:40 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 40
Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet
Last Post: Sunsettommy
03-16-2019, 04:51 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 42
Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet
Last Post: Sunsettommy
03-15-2019, 11:09 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 41
Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet
Last Post: Sunsettommy
03-15-2019, 09:39 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 32

  Steve Case
Posted by: Sunsettommy - Yesterday, 03:12 PM - Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet - No Replies

That's right, CH4 is not as scary as portrayed. But watts per
square meter doesn't mean anything to most people including me.
I'm not picking on you, I always run into the watts per square
meter lingo when I start looking for this answer. But it's an
answer that will mean something. After all Climate Change is all
about temperature. Just look at all the arguments over hottest
year ever etc. Temperature is what people want to know.

So your answer didn't tell me what the temperature would be for a
given increase in methane. Didn't say how long it would take either.
But you did show your work (-:

I should have asked, if you double methane how much and how long?

The how long part is easy. This web page
tells us that CH4 is in the air at about 1850 ppb and is
increasing at an average rate of about 6 ppb which works
out to around 300 years to double its concentration.

The temperature part should be easy because just like CO2
the climate sensitivity for CH4 should be well known. But
it's not. I'm talking the absolute value without feed backs.
For CO2 it's 1.2 K per doubling. I'm pretty sure the value
for doubling methane is somewhere between 0.1 and 0.3 K.
I've gotten to those answers by asking and some crude
arithmetic. The crude arithmetic got me to 0.18 K.

Here's the crude arithmetic:

Methane's concentration is about 2 ppm and an equal mass
of CO2 is about 0.7 ppm. Adding 2 ppm to the concentration
of methane is a 100% increase, and adding 0.7 ppm to CO2
is a 0.2% increase.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that a 0.2% increase
in CO2 won't run the temperature up very much and 84 times
that isn't very much either.

0.7 ppm/400 ppm x 1.2 K x 84 = 0.18 K

So in general terms, how much will a given rise in methane
run up the temperature? The answer is not much and it will
take a long time.

If you read all this, thanks. 


Print this item

Posted by: Sunsettommy - 04-16-2019, 04:05 PM - Forum: Science Presentations - No Replies


13 June 2008 by Alan Siddons (updated with working links on 7 July 2017)

Reports by the US Dept of Energy (DOE) indicate that 97% of the annual carbon dioxide emissions come from Nature itself. The report also indicates that more than 98% of all the carbon dioxide emissions are absorbed again by Nature.

What does this mean?

It means that since the start of the Industrial Revolution the increase in carbon dioxide levels of about 103ppmv are 97% due to Nature itself, that is to say that only about 3ppmv of that increase is due to manmade emissions.


Print this item

  VICTORY: Climate skeptic scientist Peter Ridd wins big!
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 04-16-2019, 03:11 PM - Forum: Climate Change Politics - Replies (2)

Watts Up With That!

VICTORY: Climate skeptic scientist Peter Ridd wins big!

April 15, 2019

Anthony Watts


UPDATED: Full legal document posted, along with some spectacular quotes from the judge. See below.

In a huge victory for climate skeptics everywhere, Judge Salvatore Vasta finds all findings made by James Cook University, including his sacking, were all unlawful.
WUWT readers helped make this possible. 

The order follows: h/t to @GideonCRozner and CTM

[Image: ridd-wins-document.jpg]


Print this item

  No One Can Understand My Global Warming Argument
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 03-18-2019, 03:14 PM - Forum: Climate and Weather - Replies (1)

These three postings come from a forum I occasionally post in, this particular thread is worth following:

Here is a post worth reading about since the Global  temperature data has never quite made sense to me in recent years, but kept quiet over it, until now. Here is POST ONE talking about something most people don't consider:

Quote:I have a solid argument to the effect that there has been no significant change in global temperatures for the last 100 years. Unfortunately, it's based on advanced statistical data analysis concepts, and nobody can understand it.

It starts with the idea that the temperature record is a time series with a high degree of autocorrelation.

See? Lost you already. [Image: icon_smile2.gif]

I could simplify the argument by using an analogy -- Brownian Motion!

Not any better, eh?

Albert Einstein won the Nobel Prize for this, so I guess it's not that easy.

Regardless, if you put a tiny pollen particle in a Petri dish filled with pure water the fact that the particle will wander all the way from one side of the dish to the other is not evidence that there are water currents in the dish. It's just random motion.

Huh you might say, well POST THREE expands on this line of thought through a chart generation exercise:

Quote:Oh! So it's what Tim P. said

Here's a screen print uh 4 actually from an Excel random chart generator.

[Image: image.png]

It's set up to always start at about the same place but then it's a "Drunk Walk"
of +(RAND()-0.5)*0.15 for each year and a plot of a running 5 year median.

Well anyway the four results were from around 100 trials. Some trials go
right off the chart and then a few look amazingly like the world temperature
time lines we've all seen. In this case HADCRUT 3 or 4 was used, doesn't
much make a difference.

So? Could temperature over the last 170 year be more random than anything

Beginning to get the idea that we might be fooling ourselves?

Did you read POST TWO?

Print this item

  Beach" A River of Sand
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 03-16-2019, 10:59 PM - Forum: Video - No Replies

Print this item

  Want to debate warmists, go here
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 03-16-2019, 07:40 PM - Forum: Climate and Weather - No Replies

Really the warmists in this FORUM are hilarious, since they employ a lot of unskilled irrational replies that have people laughing.

Environment Forum is the place to go, but you have to register and join. If you enjoy arguing with warmists, this the place to go.

One of the few places on the internet where warmists congregate to support their climate religion.

The Moderation team and forum rules are good and fair at the place.

I am Sunsettommy, who is a regular member there.

Print this item

Posted by: Sunsettommy - 03-16-2019, 04:51 PM - Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet - No Replies


Quote:Opinion isn't science.....But you already knew that, didn't you?

You remind me of the old joke that has been floating around libertarian and ancap circles since the dawn of time.

Q: What's the difference between a libertarian and an anarcho-capitalist?
A: Six months.

Though the time frame is rather exaggerated, the essential reality remains: you can't evade the truth forever...Or, as one of my mentors is fond of saying, "you cannot unthink thoughts".

You have been exposed to the truth that the writings of the AGW fundamentalists is loaded down with language that, to the thinking person, casts a shadow of doubt as to whether or not they really do know that they're right...Even though, for awhile at least, you'll be able to gloss over their equivocations, it's now completely impossible for you to ignore them...Now, I don't know whether or not you'll come to the realization that you've been had right away, or whether it will take some time...But the fact remains that, from this point forward, every ambiguity, every equivocation, every qualification, every parsing, every use of fudging and doubtful words like "may", "might", "could", will jump off the page at you...You'll begin to notice what has been there all along for you to see...And though you'll try to ignore this at first (we in the industry call this negative hallucination), it will still be there right before you, to sow the seeds of doubt and incredulity that such language inevitably does.

You've been red pilled, and you didn't even know it.

Print this item

Posted by: Sunsettommy - 03-15-2019, 11:09 PM - Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet - No Replies


No actual argument...nothing at all except yet another logical fallacy. Try using your brain...or maybe get someone with more intellectual horsepower at their disposal than you...if O3 readily reacts with nitrogen, hydrogen, and natural bromine and chlorine compounds which exist in the stratosphere and can be measured in parts per million, what are the chances that any given O3 molecule will react with one of those before it reacts with a CFC molecule, which according to your sources are measured in parts per billion?

Let me see if I can make it a bit simpler for you....San Jose, California has a population of just over a million...If I pick 3 at random, and set you down in some random point in that city, what are the chances you will encounter and have any sort of meaningful exchange with any of them within a month?..six months?...a year?...a decade?....your life time?

Now, if I pick 780,000 at random, and set you down in some random point in that city, what are the chances that you will encounter and have any sort of meaningful exchange with any one of them in a month?....six months?...a year?....a decade?....your life time?

CFC's at 3 parts per billion are not, never have been, nor never will be any sort of threat to the equilibrium of the ozone layer.

Print this item

Posted by: Sunsettommy - 03-15-2019, 09:39 PM - Forum: Worthy Comments to read from the internet - No Replies


You seem to have missed the entire point entirely. The theory about "being a model for the GW movement" is secondary to the SCIENCE and the data telling us that the "Ozone hole" fright was NEVER REALLY FIXED. The leadership of the world went on a wild goose chase with brand new satellite toys in the 70s and 80s and created a WORLD WIDE CRISIS where the CFC production went to ZERO -- but the ozone hole never DECREASED.

They just declared victory and moved on. All the lemmings and the lemming leaders. Because THAT science was FAR from settled as well. STILL IS.. All because we suddenly (35 yrs) was able to measure something for the FIRST TIME from space and saw it INCREASING and thought we should "fix it"....

[Image: proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.drwile...76fa9fcd68]

Does that look "fixed" to you? With no ZERO CFCs being released and a 2 yr transit time from storage in the troposphere into the "hole"????

Print this item

  Some Failed Climate Predictions
Posted by: Sunsettommy - 03-13-2019, 07:59 PM - Forum: Science Presentations - No Replies

Watts Up With That?

Some Failed Climate Predictions

Andy May / October 30, 2017

By Javier

Here, for the first time in public, is Javier’s entire collection of massive, “consensus” climate science prediction failures. This collection is carefully selected from only academics or high-ranking officials, as reported in the press or scientific journals. Rather than being exhaustive, this is a list of fully referenced arguments that shows that consensus climate science usually gets things wrong, and thus their predictions cannot be trusted.

To qualify for this list, the prediction must have failed. Alternatively, it is also considered a failure when so much of the allowed time has passed that a drastic and improbable change in the rate of change is required for it to be true. Also, we include a prediction when observations are going in the opposite way. Finally, it also qualifies when one thing and the opposite are both predicted.

A novelty is that I also add a part B that includes obvious predictions that consensus climate science did not make. In science you are also wrong if you fail to predict the obvious.


Print this item