Geoman.

quote:

Nothing is permanent on this planet. It recycles itself very efficiently. It looks after itself very well and does not need our "help".

I concur on this and your previous text. However, there are those that claim that human use of fossil fuels is causing an adverse change to climate by releasing ancient CO2. CO2 is a natural ingredient of our atmosphere in that it is well utilised by flora (both land-based and marine-based).

quote:

I am not sure what you are getting at in reference to atmospheric oxygen percentage.

I can't remember the paper (but it seemed quite relevant) which disclosed that the percentage of oxygen locked into CO2 by combustion of fossil fuels is over and above that which is reduced by the production of CO2 alone.

I can only assume that this is due to the hydrogen cycle that produces 'new water' from the fossil fuel combustion process. There seems to be less degrees of freedom for the atomic breakdown of H2O than for CO2.

Best regards, suricat.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8014.html

From Luciebee

quote:

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8014.html

The first line of the book review says it all. It starts with the assumption (still yet to be quantified) that from the start of human development mankind has been interfering with the climate. I find this hard to believe when considering the then area of human activity compared to the area of untouched planet.
The one really interesting point is the possible association of plagues and [CO2]. Yup, it is there. Cold climate, lower CO2 by increased absorption into the oceans, a drier climate, short growing season, poor harvests, human suffering etc. Whereas a warmer climate, more rain , longer growing periods, enhanced CO2 to fertilise plant growth (what we are experiencing at the present)and periods of expanding human development. The good times.

No this book will not be on my book shelves, but I might see if it is in the local library.

I applaud your ability to comment on a book without having read it!

quote:

I applaud your ability to comment on a book without having read it!

Thanks, it just come naturally!

Hey suricat need some assistance
Ein(t) = πr2S(t)
I maybe showing an embarrassing amount of ignorance here but, πr2? how does that work on the surface of a globe?
REF: Luci s link on emperical page

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:
Hey suricat need some assistance
Ein(t) = πr2S(t)
I maybe showing an embarrassing amount of ignorance here but, πr2? how does that work on the surface of a globe?
REF: Luci s link on emperical page

My bad, I get it now(4πr2)

mufcdiver.

quote:

Hey suricat need some assistance
Ein(t) = r2S(t)
I maybe showing an embarrassing amount of ignorance here but, r2? how does that work on the surface of a globe?

quote:

Define the incoming irradiance S as the energy per unit area and per unit time arriving at a planet from a stellar source. The actual radiation field is characterized by a spectrum of wavelengths and (depending on REF: Luci s link on emperical page

the size of the star(s) and distance to the planet) a small spread in directions. S is an integral over all wavelengths and propagation directions of the radiant specific energy at the distance of the planet from the star. As the planet moves through its yearly orbit, the value of S will vary, so it is strictly a function S(t) of time. The energy per unit time arriving at the planet is the product of S(t) with the area the planet subtends in the plane perpendicular to the radiant propagation direction. For a spherical planet of radius r, this area is simply 2. So total arriving energy (energy per unit time, or power) from space is Ein(t) = 2S(t)

I see what you are saying in my web browser, but my Word Pro 'Word processor application' does not compute! I'd appreciate a referral to a word processor application that is more friendly towards math and algebra for "Eve" postings.


All I can say muf is that the distance of a planet from its sun source of radiation varies in accordance with the distance respectful to the inverse law of "lux" (candle power). Er, also, 'radial' degrees of applied radiance for total energy receipt from source.

The point on "spherical radius" is that the Earth isn't spherical, it's 'oblate'! This is the reason for a more complicated math simulation to achieve a more realistic outcome than a perfect sphere, and probably the reason for your inquiry!

Hope I understood your dilemma, if not, post again.

Best regards suricat.

Mufc

quote:

Ein(t) = πr2S(t)
I maybe showing an embarrassing amount of ignorance here but, πr2? how does that work on the surface of a globe?

I hope this addresses your question.

πr^2 is the area of the earth's disk (not surface area which is 2*πr^2 facing the sun)presented to the flux from the sun, assuming the earth to be a sphere. By analogy the important thing to catch fish is the area of the entrance of the net not the surface area of the net. So rate of energy received on earth from the sun is πr^2*S(t)... but as the earth is an rotating oblate spheroid, tipped at an angle of 23.5 degs to the elliptic plane in a slowly precessing elliptical orbit, nothing is simple in terms of calculating energy received over say 1 year. Meanwhile the whole surface (4*πr^2 assuming a sphere) is radiating, convecting, clouding, reflecting, and transpiring at varying rates everywhere, so the whole energy balance at the surface is also very complex to calculate and track, let alone model.

Thanks suricat & SoM, I realised my mistake after a bit of thought, but even though we now have the power to edit posts, I left it there to remind myself what comes of asking a stupid question
Hey, I don't post to look good, I post 'cos I want the right science to be 'the right science'!

mufcdiver.

quote:

Hey, I don't post to look good, I post 'cos I want the right science to be 'the right science'!

I fully concur muf!

Best regards, suricat.

Another article to chew over. I think John Mclean's argument is well presented and I go along with what he states.

Geoman.

quote:

Another article to chew over. I think John Mclean's argument is well presented and I go along with what he states.

There's not much to chew over there Geo, this is just politics directing science and has gone on since, and before, Copernicus had his run in with the Catholic Church. I think science should be accustomed to this sort of interference by now.

To coin a phrase from SoM, the truth is out there!

Best regards, suricat.

mufcdiver.

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:
Thanks suricat & SoM, I realised my mistake after a bit of thought, but even though we now have the power to edit posts, I left it there to remind myself what comes of asking a stupid question
Hey, I don't post to look good, I post 'cos I want the right science to be 'the right science'!

That (original) post to which you were refering to has gone. Well at this time of reply, it looks as though you are posting to improve your image! You've edited your original posts out of all recognition of what they were originally written as.

As an engineer I relate 2 Pi^r as Pi^D! It's hard for me to relate with your, supposedly, "standard math".

This thread no longer makes sense to me! To what weight has your post that reminds you of your mistake/query that SoM and I tried to help you with??? I'm off!!!

suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
mufcdiver.

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:
Thanks suricat & SoM, I realised my mistake after a bit of thought, but even though we now have the power to edit posts, I left it there to remind myself what comes of asking a stupid question
Hey, I don't post to look good, I post 'cos I want the right science to be 'the right science'!

That (original) post to which you were refering to has gone. Well at this time of reply, it looks as though you are posting to improve your image! You've edited your original posts out of all recognition of what they were originally written as.

As an engineer I relate 2 Pi^r as Pi^D! It's hard for me to relate with your, supposedly, "standard math".

This thread no longer makes sense to me! To what weight has your post that reminds you of your mistake/query that SoM and I tried to help you with??? I'm off!!!

suricat.

suricat, the only editing I did to my follow up post was
>>> (4πr2) <<<
and I did this before anyone else had replied, I did no editing on the post that preceded it!
I'm sorry if I've cause any upset with you and SoM.

quote:

suricat, the only editing I did to my follow up post was
>>> (4πr2) <<<

Should read "the only editing I did to my follow up post was to add(4πr2)

(I'm having a bad week)!

MUFC/Suricat, I suggest we don't edit once a post is submitted. Instead post a correction in a second post.

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
MUFC/Suricat, I suggest we don't edit once a post is submitted. Instead post a correction in a second post.

You are right SoM, if folk spend their time checking to see if I've edited a post before posting a reply then we ain't going to get anywhere fast! I apologise unreservedly to everyone and especially to you suricat, sorry old bean .
Now I've got loads of reading to do!

mufcdiver.

quote:

You are right SoM, if folk spend their time checking to see if I've edited a post before posting a reply then we ain't going to get anywhere fast! I apologise unreservedly to everyone and especially to you suricat, sorry old bean

Apology accepted muf, but I think this also has implications for lack of quoting the post that you respond to (as in my instance with Lucibee in another thread). I posted on Luci's "Failure of peer review" link without a quote (just after you) and was met with an "I'm outta here" statement for "dismissing evidence like that". I think Luci thought that my reference was to the "And here is proof" post that was posted less than 20 minutes later. It seems it's necessary to quote prolific posters. Sorry Luci!

BTW. "Luci's link on emperical page" that you linked to in this thread (which I've never commented on previously in any thread here). If you are reading this, please bear in mind that the paper is written in justification of a TOA only radiative budget.

Pointless, because it describes nothing of entropy lock-down within the Earth model below it. Without an Earth model, how will it be possible to distinguish between coal reserves, oil reserves, or biosphere and good old warming temperature increase? I'll not nit-pick with endothermic/exothermic photolytic exchanges, or frictional heating from planet rotation, tidal effects, solar wind etc.

Best regards, suricat.

Hey all,
I've been giving some thought to this thread, and realise that some of the topics that I've posted here and the subsequent responses would have been better place in a thread of their own. Maybe this thread would be better placed being used to say Hi , just to let everyone know that we are still here, going on holiday, just got back or "Had a look around but have nothing to add today"! Maybe even general chatter
Muf

mufcdiver.

quote:

Hey all,
I've been giving some thought to this thread, and realise that some of the topics that I've posted here and the subsequent responses would have been better place in a thread of their own. Maybe this thread would be better placed being used to say Hi , just to let everyone know that we are still here, going on holiday, just got back or "Had a look around but have nothing to add today"! Maybe even general chatter
Muf

Fine. Then why did you post it in the sci/tec section?

I'll see you "elsewhere" perhaps.

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:

Fine. Then why did you post it in the sci/tec section?

I'll see you "elsewhere" perhaps.

The one thing that I salvaged from C4[ the old 'Hey suricat ' thread] after reading it in total just before the close down. There was some really good 'random' stuff in there and I thought that this new board would would benefit from having a similar thread(I wonder if they would make it a sticky so people could dump any off-topic guff innit)!

mufcdiver.

quote:

The one thing that I salvaged from C4[ the old 'Hey suricat ' thread] after reading it in total just before the close down. There was some really good 'random' stuff in there and I thought that this new board would would benefit from having a similar thread(I wonder if they would make it a sticky so people could dump any off-topic guff innit)!

I'll go along with that. I remember you telling me that you liked "Big Bang Theory" and all I did was lead into a discussion about a big bang, or a steady state universe (not the show).

I think it's a good idea to have a non science thread in the science dept.

Best regards, suricat.

Did anyone manage to salvage much from the old c4 forum that could be re-input back on here?
If the Little Cat can manage it, I'm sure we can!

mufcdiver.

quote:

Did anyone manage to salvage much from the old c4 forum that could be re-input back on here?
If the Little Cat can manage it, I'm sure we can!

All I've salvaged is the posts that I've made on C4 for reason of proof of nondisclosure. However, if others have done this a reconstruction is possible (but why).

I think it's time to move on muf. The demise of C4's "eve forum" is complete. I think we all loved it when it was there and we all loved the chat, but it's gone and we need to recapitulate and reorganise ourselves to carry on with C4 in mind. "Onwards and upwards", to quote SoM from way back when!! Though perhaps, "Par ardua ad astra" (to the stars by toil), would be more appropriate (if I'm permitted to use archaic English)?

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
mufcdiver.

quote:

Did anyone manage to salvage much from the old c4 forum that could be re-input back on here?
If the Little Cat can manage it, I'm sure we can!

All I've salvaged is the posts that I've made on C4 for reason of proof of nondisclosure. However, if others have done this a reconstruction is possible (but why).

I think it's time to move on muf. The demise of C4's "eve forum" is complete. I think we all loved it when it was there and we all loved the chat, but it's gone and we need to recapitulate and reorganise ourselves to carry on with C4 in mind. "Onwards and upwards", to quote SoM from way back when!! Though perhaps, "Par ardua ad astra" (to the stars by toil), would be more appropriate (if I'm permitted to use archaic English)?

Best regards, suricat.

Not so much as an 'old time sake' suricat, more of a point of reference to make sure that we aren't re-covering old ground!
I got the whole of the old 'Hey [suricat]' thread, but now wish that I had got the old 'empirical falsification' thread!

simlpes

*Simples*

mufcdiver.

quote:

*simples*

A very cute and memorable marketing technique (i'n'it! [pardon the bad grammar in my dialectal paraphrasing of part of your recent sig]).

I don't see that there should be any problem with going over old ground that was previously covered on the C4 web site. It may be a bit boring for some of us, but I'm sure that many from the old site would appreciate a refresher and any "new bees" here shall need the background as a "catch-up" to any current debate.

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
mufcdiver.


A very cute and memorable marketing technique (i'n'it!

LOL....If you see Sid, don't forget to tell him

mufcdiver.

quote:

LOL....If you see Sid, don't forget to tell him

You want me to tell Sid:
Why OLR energy won't ever equal insolation energy? You got it!
Why human CO2 emission is insignificant? You got it!
Why Arctic ice melt is natural and doesn't stress the polar bear populus? You got it!
Why Sid (a carnivore) should eat BEETROOT (a vegetable), or that he's just a marketing ploy?

YOU tell 'im!!!

This is a "bouncers wear pink" scenario for me. There are some things that I just won't do when they go against science and nature!

Best regards, suricat.

I'm still here
Where does everyone go when they're not here?

mufcdiver.

Well I know where I am, but we don't even get any science questions when I'm here now. Hardly worth being here really.

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
mufcdiver.

Well I know where I am, but we don't even get any science questions when I'm here now. Hardly worth being here really.

Best regards, suricat.

Rome wasn't built in a day suricat, its going to take time to build up this thread! Most of our clients on C4 wondered in because we had a prominent google footprint

ps
GGWS helped also

Mufc

quote:

Where does everyone go when they're not here?

The best Climate discussion sites I've found are Watts up? Climate Audit, Junkscience, Jennifer Marohasy and Climate Debate Daily.

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Mufc

quote:

Where does everyone go when they're not here?

The best Climate discussion sites I've found are Watts up? Climate Audit, Junkscience, Jennifer Marohasy and Climate Debate Daily.

I like Anthonys & Jennifers sites, find CAs navigation confusing & forgot about CDD, off to check out Junkscience, cheers SoM

mufcdiver.

quote:

Where does everyone go when they're not here?

Technorati looks like a good place to find blogs, or other fora perhaps.
http://technorati.com/

Best regards, suricat.

mufcdiver.

quote:

Technorati looks like a good place to find blogs, or other fora perhaps.

OK! Hands up! I thought that this was a place that you would like to see! To me it's boring unless it leads to a site that includes something that interests me.

Something that does interest me can be found here;
http://climateprogress.org/200...d-electric-vehicles/
And the reason it interests me is because although it's diverse in its discussion of the subject, it doesn't include the subject of the vehicle that I would propose for everyday and exceptional use by the general public to both cut CO2 emission and reduce other GHGs (mostly NOx from IC engines).

I doubt that this is of interest to you.

Best regards, suricat.

mufcdiver.

Just added another site to my fav list.
http://theresilientearth.com/
This looks a bit quiet, but more realistic than most!

Best regards, suricat.

Reet!
I'm moving house so my internet connection will be interrupted for a fortnight (10 working days) from monday!
So I'll see y'all when I'm reconnected



Of over 28,000 public buildings, the MET office came 103rd (bet you can't guess what for )