I was wrong again

[AGWFacts]

Previously I had written in these two newsgroups, several times,
that the amount of energy being retained by Earth due to our
release of CO2 into the atmosphere is equal to about 2,880
Hiroshima Atom Bombs ("Big Boy") per day.

I was horrible wrong, for which I apologize. That number is no
where near the actual value.


--
"The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly
on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent
advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers,
tyrants, and madmen." -- The Heartland Institute cult

[Sam Wormley]

Earth is gaining 0.6 W/m^2 or about 400,000 Hiroshima Atom Bombs/day.

[Will Janoschka]

Or about 0.4% of what is received to compensate against future
cooling!
What a lovely planet we live upon. The planet can handle 7 billion
ugly
Anthropoids, how amazing!!!!

[kym horsell]

On Monday, May 14, 2012 8:57:52 AM UTC+10, Will Janoschka wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:43:47, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 5/13/12 2:31 PM, AGWFacts wrote:
> > > Previously I had written in these two newsgroups, several times,
> > > that the amount of energy being retained by Earth due to our
> > > release of CO2 into the atmosphere is equal to about 2,880
> > > Hiroshima Atom Bombs ("Big Boy") per day.
> > >
> > > I was horrible wrong, for which I apologize. That number is no
> > > where near the actual value.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > "The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly
> > > on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent
> > > advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers,
> > > tyrants, and madmen." -- The Heartland Institute cult
> >
> > Earth is gaining 0.6 W/m^2 or about 400,000 Hiroshima Atom Bombs/day.
>
>
> Or about 0.4% of what is received to compensate against future
> cooling!

...

In the same way as asteroid impact == insurance against future stoopidity.

--
What part of "put the people who disagree with me to death", which is
what [James Hansen] said UNDER OATH TO CONGRESS, did you find to be "honest and caring"?
-- Melvin on Mars, 11 May 2012 11:11 am

CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware
of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my
opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity
and nature.
Conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal CEOs will be no consolation,
if we pass on a runaway climate to our children. Humanity would be
impoverished by ravages of continually shifting shorelines and
intensification of regional climate extremes. Loss of countless
species would leave a more desolate planet.
-- James Hansen, Congressional briefing, 23 Jun 2008

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

The Hiroshima bomb, Little Boy (not "Big Boy") released somewhere
between 54-75 TJ and the surface of the Earth is about 510,000,000 km^2.

Show your math to get to a number of 0.6 with units of W/m^2.

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 14:43:47 -0500, Sam Wormley
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/13/12 2:31 PM, AGWFacts wrote:
> > Previously I had written in these two newsgroups, several times,
> > that the amount of energy being retained by Earth due to our
> > release of CO2 into the atmosphere is equal to about 2,880
> > Hiroshima Atom Bombs ("Big Boy") per day.
> >
> > I was horrible wrong, for which I apologize. That number is no
> > where near the actual value.

> Earth is gaining 0.6 W/m^2 or about 400,000 Hiroshima Atom Bombs/day.

I was wrong because (1) it was "Little Boy" that was used on
Hiroshima, and (2) my figure for the bomb was far too low.

Are these (below) *NOT* the correct values?

510,072,000,000: Earth's Surface, square meters
0.58: Watt retained per M^2
295,841,760,000: Joules per second (Watts)

15,000 Hiroshima Bomb, Tons of TNT (Appoximate)
4,184,000,000: Joules, 1 Ton TNT
62,760,000,000,000: Hiroshima Bomb 63 terajoules

0.00471 Hiroshima Bombs a second
0.28283 Hiroshima Bombs an hour
6.78796 Hiroshima Bombs a day
2479.30102 Hiroshima Bombs a year

Sources:

Earth's surface area:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

Current energy imbalance due to increased atmospheric CO2:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/

TNT Energy Equivalent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent

Hiroshima "Little Boy" bomb's energy between 13 and 18 kilotons of
TNT (54 and 75 Terajoule):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy

About 63 terajoules were released by the atomic bomb that exploded
over Hiroshima:

http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/publications/LANLHiroshimaNagasakiYields.pdf

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 23:54:02 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/13/12 2:31 PM, AGWFacts wrote:

> >> Previously I had written in these two newsgroups, several times,
> >> that the amount of energy being retained by Earth due to our
> >> release of CO2 into the atmosphere is equal to about 2,880
> >> Hiroshima Atom Bombs ("Big Boy") per day.
> >>
> >> I was horrible wrong, for which I apologize. That number is no
> >> where near the actual value.

> > Earth is gaining 0.6 W/m^2 or about 400,000 Hiroshima Atom Bombs/day.

> The Hiroshima bomb, Little Boy (not "Big Boy") released somewhere

Yes: that is one of two errors I had made. The second error was
the estimate amount of energy released by the bomb.

> between 54-75 TJ

Aprox 63 terajoules according to Los Alamos. [4, 5]

> and the surface of the Earth is about 510,000,000 km^2.

Yes. 510,072,000,000 square meters. [1]

> Show your math to get to a number of 0.6 with units of W/m^2.

It's 0.58 watt per square meter, plus or minus 0.15 watt per
square meter. [2] If I did the math correctly, Earth is retaining
anomalously, due chiefly to human-released CO2, 295,841,760,000
joules per second. That's 426 terajoules per 24 hours, or 6.78
Hiroshima atom bombs per day. If Sam Wormley or anyone else cares
to correct me, I will thank her or him very much for doing so.

[AGWFacts]

Oops! NOTES:

[1] Earth's surface area:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

[2] Current energy imbalance due to increased atmospheric CO2:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/

[3] TNT Energy Equivalent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent

[4] Hiroshima "Little Boy" bomb's energy between 13 and 18

kilotons of TNT (54 and 75 Terajoule):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy

[5] About 63 terajoules were released by the atomic bomb that

exploded over Hiroshima:

http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/publications/LANLHiroshimaNagasakiYields.pdf

[6] "Orbital insolation, ice volume, and greenhouse gases," Dr.
William F. Ruddiman (Department of Environmental Sciences,
University of Virginia, Clark Hall, Charlottesville, VA 22903,
USA); Received 11 March 2002; accepted 24 February 2003

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/emartin/GLY6075F08/papers/Ruddiman%2703.pdf

[Bill Snyder]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 18:23:50 -0600, AGWFacts
<AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 13 May 2012 23:54:02 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
>wrote:
>
>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 5/13/12 2:31 PM, AGWFacts wrote:
>
>> >> Previously I had written in these two newsgroups, several times,
>> >> that the amount of energy being retained by Earth due to our
>> >> release of CO2 into the atmosphere is equal to about 2,880
>> >> Hiroshima Atom Bombs ("Big Boy") per day.
>> >>
>> >> I was horrible wrong, for which I apologize. That number is no
>> >> where near the actual value.
>
>> > Earth is gaining 0.6 W/m^2 or about 400,000 Hiroshima Atom Bombs/day.
>
>> The Hiroshima bomb, Little Boy (not "Big Boy") released somewhere
>
>Yes: that is one of two errors I had made. The second error was
>the estimate amount of energy released by the bomb.
>
>> between 54-75 TJ
>
>Aprox 63 terajoules according to Los Alamos. [4, 5]
>
>> and the surface of the Earth is about 510,000,000 km^2.
>
>Yes. 510,072,000,000 square meters. [1]

Isn't that about 3 orders of magnitude too low? 510 * 10^6 km^2
is 510 * 10^12 m^2.

>> Show your math to get to a number of 0.6 with units of W/m^2.
>
>It's 0.58 watt per square meter, plus or minus 0.15 watt per
>square meter. [2] If I did the math correctly, Earth is retaining
>anomalously, due chiefly to human-released CO2, 295,841,760,000
>joules per second. That's 426 terajoules per 24 hours, or 6.78
>Hiroshima atom bombs per day. If Sam Wormley or anyone else cares
>to correct me, I will thank her or him very much for doing so.

That looks 'way off, too, unless I'm doing something very wrong.

Lessee, 510 * 10^12 m^2 * 0.58 W/m^2 is about 296 * 10^12 W, or
about 1000 times your figure per comment above. Multiply by
86,400 seconds/day to get around 2.55 * 10^19 J, or 2.55 * 10^7
TJ. It looks like maybe you multiplied by the number of minutes
in a day, rather than the number of seconds.


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[R Kym Horsell]

In alt.global-warming Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/13/12 2:31 PM, AGWFacts wrote:
>> Previously I had written in these two newsgroups, several times,
>> that the amount of energy being retained by Earth due to our
>> release of CO2 into the atmosphere is equal to about 2,880
>> Hiroshima Atom Bombs ("Big Boy") per day.
>>
>> I was horrible wrong, for which I apologize. That number is no
>> where near the actual value.
>>
>>
>> --
>> "The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly
>> on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent

>> advocates of global warming aren?t scientists. They are murderers,

>> tyrants, and madmen." -- The Heartland Institute cult
>
> Earth is gaining 0.6 W/m^2 or about 400,000 Hiroshima Atom Bombs/day.

From off the top of my head it's mor elike 420,000 63 TJ bombs per day.

I.e. 5e14 m2 at .6 W/m2 == 3e14 W by 86400 sec == 2.6e19 J.

C.f. measly 63e12 J from a toy atomic bomb.

--
[A] real greenhouse has solid walls which do not allow the internal
air to mix with the ambient air, which could be well
below freezing, has nothing to do with it and the vents on real greenhouses
that are used to provide regulation of the internal temperature don't exist.
-- ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

[R Kym Horsell]

In alt.global-warming Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 18:23:50 -0600, AGWFacts
> <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 May 2012 23:54:02 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On 5/13/12 2:31 PM, AGWFacts wrote:
>>
>>> >> Previously I had written in these two newsgroups, several times,
>>> >> that the amount of energy being retained by Earth due to our
>>> >> release of CO2 into the atmosphere is equal to about 2,880
>>> >> Hiroshima Atom Bombs ("Big Boy") per day.
>>> >>
>>> >> I was horrible wrong, for which I apologize. That number is no
>>> >> where near the actual value.
>>
>>> > Earth is gaining 0.6 W/m^2 or about 400,000 Hiroshima Atom Bombs/day.
>>
>>> The Hiroshima bomb, Little Boy (not "Big Boy") released somewhere
>>
>>Yes: that is one of two errors I had made. The second error was
>>the estimate amount of energy released by the bomb.
>>
>>> between 54-75 TJ
>>
>>Aprox 63 terajoules according to Los Alamos. [4, 5]
>>
>>> and the surface of the Earth is about 510,000,000 km^2.
>>
>>Yes. 510,072,000,000 square meters. [1]
>
> Isn't that about 3 orders of magnitude too low? 510 * 10^6 km^2
> is 510 * 10^12 m^2.

...

You are awarded a gold star for mental arithmetic. :)

--
[C]limate scepticism seems strongest among geologists closely linked
to the mining and fossil fuel industries. Perhaps the words of Upton
Sinclair shine some understanding on the forces at play here: "It is
difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary
depends upon his not understanding it."
-- John Cook, "Geologists and climate change denial", 9 Jun 2011

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 23:54:02 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> wrote:
>
>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 5/13/12 2:31 PM, AGWFacts wrote:
>
>> >> Previously I had written in these two newsgroups, several times,
>> >> that the amount of energy being retained by Earth due to our
>> >> release of CO2 into the atmosphere is equal to about 2,880
>> >> Hiroshima Atom Bombs ("Big Boy") per day.
>> >>
>> >> I was horrible wrong, for which I apologize. That number is no
>> >> where near the actual value.
>
>> > Earth is gaining 0.6 W/m^2 or about 400,000 Hiroshima Atom Bombs/day.
>
>> The Hiroshima bomb, Little Boy (not "Big Boy") released somewhere
>
> Yes: that is one of two errors I had made. The second error was
> the estimate amount of energy released by the bomb.
>
>> between 54-75 TJ
>
> Aprox 63 terajoules according to Los Alamos. [4, 5]
>
>> and the surface of the Earth is about 510,000,000 km^2.
>
> Yes. 510,072,000,000 square meters. [1]
>
>> Show your math to get to a number of 0.6 with units of W/m^2.
>
> It's 0.58 watt per square meter, plus or minus 0.15 watt per
> square meter.

Again, how do you get to the number and the units?

Show your math.

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:59:07 -0500, Bill Snyder
<bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 13 May 2012 18:23:50 -0600, AGWFacts
> <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 13 May 2012 23:54:02 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On 5/13/12 2:31 PM, AGWFacts wrote:
> >
> >> >> Previously I had written in these two newsgroups, several times,
> >> >> that the amount of energy being retained by Earth due to our
> >> >> release of CO2 into the atmosphere is equal to about 2,880
> >> >> Hiroshima Atom Bombs ("Big Boy") per day.
> >> >>
> >> >> I was horrible wrong, for which I apologize. That number is no
> >> >> where near the actual value.
> >
> >> > Earth is gaining 0.6 W/m^2 or about 400,000 Hiroshima Atom Bombs/day.
> >
> >> The Hiroshima bomb, Little Boy (not "Big Boy") released somewhere
> >
> >Yes: that is one of two errors I had made. The second error was
> >the estimate amount of energy released by the bomb.
> >
> >> between 54-75 TJ
> >
> >Aprox 63 terajoules according to Los Alamos. [4, 5]
> >
> >> and the surface of the Earth is about 510,000,000 km^2.
> >
> >Yes. 510,072,000,000 square meters. [1]

> Isn't that about 3 orders of magnitude too low? 510 * 10^6 km^2
> is 510 * 10^12 m^2.

WikiPedia states 510,072,000 km^2 so I added three zeros.
510,072,000,000 m^2, or 510*10^9 which was *WRONG.* Damn it.

My convertion program says 510,072,000 km^2 equals 5.10072e+014
m^2 which is 510,072,000,000,000 so you are 100% correct, and I am
100% wrong once again.

>>> Show your math to get to a number of 0.6 with units of W/m^2.

> >It's 0.58 watt per square meter, plus or minus 0.15 watt per
> >square meter. [2] If I did the math correctly, Earth is retaining
> >anomalously, due chiefly to human-released CO2, 295,841,760,000
> >joules per second. That's 426 terajoules per 24 hours, or 6.78
> >Hiroshima atom bombs per day. If Sam Wormley or anyone else cares
> >to correct me, I will thank her or him very much for doing so.

> That looks 'way off, too, unless I'm doing something very wrong.
>
> Lessee, 510 * 10^12 m^2 * 0.58 W/m^2 is about 296 * 10^12 W, or
> about 1000 times your figure per comment above. Multiply by
> 86,400 seconds/day to get around 2.55 * 10^19 J, or 2.55 * 10^7
> TJ.

295,841,760,000,000 joules for 86,400 seconds, given a surface
area of 510,072,000,000,000 square meters at 0.58 watt per square
meter. 25,560,728,064,000,000,000 Joules a day.

> It looks like maybe you multiplied by the number of minutes
> in a day, rather than the number of seconds.

You are right, I am once again wrong, damn me.

25,560,728,064,000,000,000 Joules a day

62,760,000,000,000 One Hiroshima bomb

407,277 Hiroshima bombs per day.

Thank you for the correction. I was indeed off by three orders.

[1] Earth's surface area:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

[2] Current energy imbalance due to increased atmospheric CO2:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/

[3] TNT Energy Equivalent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent

[4] Hiroshima "Little Boy" bomb's energy between 13 and 18
kilotons of TNT (54 and 75 Terajoule):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy

[5] About 63 terajoules were released by the atomic bomb that
exploded over Hiroshima:

http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/publications/LANLHiroshimaNagasakiYields.pdf

[DOUBLE-ACES]

On May 13, 9:41 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:59:07 -0500, Bill Snyder
>
>
>
>
>
> <bsny...@airmail.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 May 2012 18:23:50 -0600, AGWFacts

> > <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Sun, 13 May 2012 23:54:02 -0000, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> > >wrote:

> http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/publications/LANLHiroshimaNagas...

>
> --
> "The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly
> on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent
> advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers,
> tyrants, and madmen." -- The Heartland Institute cult

Do scientist use wikipedia for information on technical theories? or
is it just you who does that?

[AGWFacts]

And I deserve a kick in the ass for failing. :-)

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 01:15:23 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

Once again:

[1] Earth's surface area:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

[2] Current energy imbalance due to increased atmospheric CO2:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/

[3] TNT Energy Equivalent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent

[4] Hiroshima "Little Boy" bomb's energy between 13 and 18
kilotons of TNT (54 and 75 Terajoule):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy

[5] About 63 terajoules were released by the atomic bomb that
exploded over Hiroshima:

http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/publications/LANLHiroshimaNagasakiYields.pdf

510,072,000,000,000 Earth's Surface, square meters

0.58 Watt retained per M^2

295,841,760,000,000 Joules per second (Watts)

86,400 Seconds Per day
25,560,728,064,000,000,000 Joules Per day

15,000 "Hiroshima Bomb Tons of TNT (Appoximate)"

4,184,000,000 Joules, 1 Ton TNT
62,760,000,000,000 "Hiroshima Bomb 63 terajoules"

407,277 Hiroshima Bombs per day

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 01:26:45 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell
<k...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:

> In alt.global-warming Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/13/12 2:31 PM, AGWFacts wrote:
> >> Previously I had written in these two newsgroups, several times,
> >> that the amount of energy being retained by Earth due to our
> >> release of CO2 into the atmosphere is equal to about 2,880
> >> Hiroshima Atom Bombs ("Big Boy") per day.
> >>
> >> I was horrible wrong, for which I apologize. That number is no
> >> where near the actual value.

> > Earth is gaining 0.6 W/m^2 or about 400,000 Hiroshima Atom Bombs/day.

> From off the top of my head it's mor elike 420,000 63 TJ bombs per day.
> I.e. 5e14 m2 at .6 W/m2 == 3e14 W by 86400 sec == 2.6e19 J.
> C.f. measly 63e12 J from a toy atomic bomb.

Thank you; "Little Boy" was a tiny bomb, as modern atomic bombs
go: about 15 kilotons of TNT. My error was in Earth's surfae area,
stupid me.

The curret rate of anomalous energy being retained by Earth every
day due chiefly to human-released CO2 is equal to 407,277
Hiroshima bombs---- the median estimate of "Little Boy" according
to Los Alamos. Most of that energy (roughly 85%) is going into the
world's oceans.

This is more than twice the amount of the sun's variability, at
0.25 watt m^2. Worse yet, since the middle of year 2002 the sun's
total irradiance steadily decreased until the middle of year 2009,
yet four record high global average temperatures occurred during
that time span. Only the increase in atmospheric CO2 explains why.

Total solar irradiance will peak in year 2013, and I have a $100
wager offered to anyone who cares to take it that says year 2013
will set a record high global average temperature.

[1] Earth's surface area:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

[2] Current energy imbalance due to increased atmospheric CO2:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/

[3] TNT Energy Equivalent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent

[4] Hiroshima "Little Boy" bomb's energy between 13 and 18
kilotons of TNT (54 and 75 Terajoule):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy

[5] About 63 terajoules were released by the atomic bomb that
exploded over Hiroshima:

http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/publications/LANLHiroshimaNagasakiYields.pdf

--
"The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly
on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent

advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers,

[Sam Wormley]

There is no shame is calculation errors. We all do that.
Your concepts were sound. Thank you for your educational
efforts on USENET!

--Sam

[Tunderbar]

doesn't change the fact that you are still an idiot

[bjacoby]

On 5/13/2012 9:26 PM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
> In alt.global-warming Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/13/12 2:31 PM, AGWFacts wrote:

>>> "The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly
>>> on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent
>>> advocates of global warming aren?t scientists. They are murderers,
>>> tyrants, and madmen." -- The Heartland Institute cult
>>
>> Earth is gaining 0.6 W/m^2 or about 400,000 Hiroshima Atom Bombs/day.
>
> From off the top of my head it's mor elike 420,000 63 TJ bombs per day.
>
> I.e. 5e14 m2 at .6 W/m2 == 3e14 W by 86400 sec == 2.6e19 J.
>
> C.f. measly 63e12 J from a toy atomic bomb.

Oh muffy look! This is too funny for words. Global alarmists actually
trying to do athrithmetic, let alone the science they pretend to know!

Instead of "off the top of your head" which is the way you do all your
"science" by making it up on the spot, try doing what Jimp said and show
your work! We've already noticed your "method" of starting with a false
made-up premise and doing some (wrong) arithmetic to make it seem as if
it's "science". (Sun shines on both sides of the earth during the day?)

Your scientific abilities are really, really convincing to a skeptical
public! No wonder the only people who believe in global warming are the
radical fringe of society. (Also noted that since we started comparing
you warmists to fundies, you started calling skeptics "cults". Can't you
ever think of anything yourselves? Do you always have to accuse your
critics of what they accuse you of doing? Start putting that CO2 you are
exhaling to some use!)

I'm sorry this is too embarrassing for you, I can't even stand to watch
any longer...

[$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto]

On May 13, 3:31 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> Previously I had written in these two newsgroups, several times,
> that the amount of energy being retained by Earth due to our
> release of CO2 into the atmosphere is equal to about 2,880
> Hiroshima Atom Bombs ("Big Boy") per day.
>
> I was horrible wrong, for which I apologize.

"Big Boy?" Is that a bomb, or a hamburger? P.S. I LOVE the science-
illiterate analogies you people come up with.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/13/12 6:54 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>
> Show your math to get to a number of 0.6 with units of W/m^2.
>

Data from about 1 million ocean temperature profiles show that the ocean
has been taking up heat at a rate of 0.6 W/m2 (averaged over the full
surface of the Earth) for the period 1993–2003.

Ref: http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/PAPERS/willis_jgr_04.pdf

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:

> The curret rate of anomalous energy being retained by Earth every
> day due chiefly to human-released CO2 is equal to 407,277
> Hiroshima bombs---- the median estimate of "Little Boy" according
> to Los Alamos. Most of that energy (roughly 85%) is going into the
> world's oceans.

A meaningless comparison made only to induce some sort of fear.

And that would still be true even if the CO2 part were proven fact.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is no shame is calculation errors. We all do that.
> Your concepts were sound. Thank you for your educational
> efforts on USENET!

"educational efforts" my ass.

The only purpose to this meaningless comparison is to be scary, nothing
more, ass hat.

[gordo]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 22:07:22 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>

He forgot one thing and that is the size of an atom that was
supposedly split. An atom is so small that there is no way that it
could release all that energy. It is smaller than a CO2 molecule .It
is in fact smaller than minuscule. He claimed that these minuscule
atoms had 63 terajoules released by the atomic bomb that
exploded over Hiroshima.Next he will try to tell us that CO2 is the
reason for the present global warming.

[hanson]

Enviro "Sam Wormler" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
-- AGWFarts David Rice <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
--- R Kym wHore-sell <k...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>
hanson wrote:
David Rice and the other 2 AGWers, those "Always
Green Whores" were (self)-admittedly wrong in their
CC assessment. BUT they made an excellent case
for Iran and North Korea to go ahead and be allowed
to have nuclear bombs.
>
There is little doubt that the also very green UN will
agree with these "Always Green Wankers" that nukes
and their proliferation are an insignificant problems
when compared to AGW...
Never mind any unintended consequences...
Enviro-AGW Hysteria trumps everything... ahahaha..
>
ROTFLMAO. Thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson
>
>
___ The deliberations & minutes of the AGW-CC,
___ the "Always Green Wanker County Council", say:

[Uncle Ben]

On May 14, 12:06 am, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto"

That's not an analogy; that's what it was called by the people who
made it.

Hats off to AGWFacts for admitting an error, like a gentleman.

[Will Janoschka]

Ben the 0.58 watts per sq meter of "earth cross sectional area"
retained. is close!
Earth receiver 140 watts per sq meter of "earth cross sectional area"
from the sun
at all times. That is, earth now retains 0.4% of sun power, much
less than the 1.3%
retained 100 years ago. This kinda indicates that a new ice age is
unlikely.

" Kinda unlikely" is as close as earthlings will ever get to the
earths workings.

Lotsa zeros create fear!!! Arithmatic? Did these clowns ever go to
school?
Perhaps they had Wormley as a teacher! -will-

[Poutnik]

In article posted Sun, 13 May 2012 19:59:07 -0500 to sci.physics,
Bill Snyder posted this..

>
>
> >> Show your math to get to a number of 0.6 with units of W/m^2.
> >
> >It's 0.58 watt per square meter, plus or minus 0.15 watt per
> >square meter.

It must be also evaluated in context of Solar "constant",
that varies between cca 1300-1400 W / m2,
as incoming radiant flux to atmosphere.

--
Poutnik

[Rockinghorse Winner]

* It may have been the liquor talking, but

Researchers at MIT have determined that the ignorance and incomptence by all
AGW advocates in the world is equivalent to roughly 12,000 Obamas being
elected every day. Scary....

Terry
--
"There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
-Albert Schweitzer

badass linux - 3.2.12-gentoo

[RedAcer]

Anything that helps people visualise the scale of the problem must be a
good thing. If this scares you then the example has served its purpose.

[Falcon]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 09:24:31 +0100
RedAcer wrote...

I'm pleased to see you finally admit that it's just an attempt to scare
people, but then we all knew that; green activists do nothing else.
Comparing poorly estimated heat absorption figures with the energy
released by thousands of atomic explosions is amusingly inappropriate.
If you think it impresses anyone (or actually scares anyone with more
than two brain cells to rub together) think again.

--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)

[bjacoby]

Did you begin by noticing the false premise that this "retained" heat is
due to solely to CO2 AGW? Plus Wormley asserts this figure comes
basically from ocean warming. (which is about the only thing easily
measured). Is that true?

"As shown in Figure 2, there has been no warming of the “Indian &
Pacific Ocean Plus” sea surface temperature anomalies since 1995. That
doesn’t mean that one of the individual ocean basins has not warmed. See
Figure 5. The Indian Ocean (60S-30N, 20E-120E) sea surface temperature
anomalies have warmed, except it’s at a rate that’s about 42% of what
was simulated by the IPCC’s climate models. And as noted earlier, the
North Pacific data shows that it has cooled. So has the South Pacific
(60S-0, 120E-70W). Refer to Figures 6 and 7. Think about that for a
moment. Not only has the largest ocean on this planet not warmed in
agreement with the models, it’s actually cooled over the past 17 years."

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/what-do-observed-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-and-climate-models-have-in-common-over-the-past-17-years/

Obviously not.

So with a half percent of the sun's energy being retained in the earth
each year, I presume that we all need to be scared that in a couple
hundred years the oceans will be boiling and all life on the planet will
cease? Allow me to point out that energy like CO2 is in an equilibrium.
There are many mechanisms here (many not understood) that control this
equilibrium. The idea of the energy of 400,000 nuclear bombs each year
building up until the planet explodes is patent scientific nonsense as
well as being based on lies.

So while actual principles of equilibrium are ignored, huge calculations
with many zeros are used and compared to things the ignorant public can
"understand" like nuclear bombs to create scare tactics. It's patent
fraud. I dare say the earth is NOT going to explode from "retained"
energy nor is all life going to be snuffed by "retained" CO2.

Unfortunately since it's all politics now, no true speculations on
unknown mechanisms are really permitted and no trustworthy data seems to
be available any longer.

But we can still be amused watching warmists trying to convert square
kilometers to square meters or power to energy.

(said like Homer Simpson looking at a donut)

Zeros! Oooooo!

[AGWFacts]

Yes. That value is 0.25 watt m^2

The +0.58 watt m^2 value is above the solar variance mean.


--

"The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly
on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent

advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers,

[AGWFacts]

Unfortunately the data for high latitudes has large error bars.
ARGO was performed by "ships of opportunity:" the 3,000 expendable
bathythermographs were used on ships that just happened to be
going in the desired areas, with little representation in high
latitudes.

Below the 900 meter depth, the average amount of energy taken up
by the oceans in four years (2005 to 2008) was 0.77 watt m^2;
above that depth, a bloody hell of a lot more than the 0.6 in the
previous decade.

Unfortunately a hell of a lot of energy is still "missing." We
know Earth retained it because satellites measured energy going in
and coming out, but the entire excess is still not accounted for.

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 22:07:22 -0500, Sam Wormley

> There is no shame is calculation errors. We all do that.
> Your concepts were sound. Thank you for your educational
> efforts on USENET!

Three orders of magnitude off?! I'm still ashamed. :-)

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 04:50:28 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> > There is no shame is calculation errors. We all do that.
> > Your concepts were sound. Thank you for your educational
> > efforts on USENET!

> "educational efforts" my ass.

How very amusing.

> The only purpose to this meaningless comparison is to be scary, nothing
> more, ass hat.

Huh? "Scary?" Were you frightened? I attempted to give a
visualization to the amount of energy (*NOT* heat) that Earth is
currently retaining anomalously. If you were frightened, then I am
sorry.

[AGWFacts]

> > There is no shame is calculation errors. We all do that.
> > Your concepts were sound. Thank you for your educational
> > efforts on USENET!

> He forgot one thing and that is the size of an atom that was
> supposedly split. An atom is so small that there is no way that it
> could release all that energy. It is smaller than a CO2 molecule .It
> is in fact smaller than minuscule. He claimed that these minuscule
> atoms had 63 terajoules released by the atomic bomb that

> exploded over Hiroshima. Next he will try to tell us that CO2 is the

> reason for the present global warming.

(Rolling on the floor). That's funny, and I wish I had thought of
that. 63,503 grams of Uranium, of which about 0.7 of a gram
actually underwent fission. Why, that's nothing! What is that...
about 23 parts per million?

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 04:48:34 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> On Sun, 13 May 2012 21:02:41 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 14 May 2012 01:26:45 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell
> > <k...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> >
> > > In alt.global-warming Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 5/13/12 2:31 PM, AGWFacts wrote:
> > > >> Previously I had written in these two newsgroups, several times,
> > > >> that the amount of energy being retained by Earth due to our
> > > >> release of CO2 into the atmosphere is equal to about 2,880
> > > >> Hiroshima Atom Bombs ("Big Boy") per day.
> > > >>
> > > >> I was horrible wrong, for which I apologize. That number is no
> > > >> where near the actual value.
> >
> > > > Earth is gaining 0.6 W/m^2 or about 400,000 Hiroshima Atom Bombs/day.
> >
> > > From off the top of my head it's mor elike 420,000 63 TJ bombs per day.
> > > I.e. 5e14 m2 at .6 W/m2 == 3e14 W by 86400 sec == 2.6e19 J.
> > > C.f. measly 63e12 J from a toy atomic bomb.
> >
> > Thank you; "Little Boy" was a tiny bomb, as modern atomic bombs
> > go: about 15 kilotons of TNT. My error was in Earth's surfae area,
> > stupid me.
> >

> > The curret rate of anomalous energy being retained by Earth every
> > day due chiefly to human-released CO2 is equal to 407,277
> > Hiroshima bombs---- the median estimate of "Little Boy" according
> > to Los Alamos. Most of that energy (roughly 85%) is going into the
> > world's oceans.
> >

> > This is more than twice the amount of the sun's variability, at
> > 0.25 watt m^2. Worse yet, since the middle of year 2002 the sun's
> > total irradiance steadily decreased until the middle of year 2009,
> > yet four record high global average temperatures occurred during
> > that time span. Only the increase in atmospheric CO2 explains why.
> >
> > Total solar irradiance will peak in year 2013, and I have a $100
> > wager offered to anyone who cares to take it that says year 2013
> > will set a record high global average temperature.
> >
> > [1] Earth's surface area:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
> >
> > [2] Current energy imbalance due to increased atmospheric CO2:
> >
> > http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/
> >
> > [3] TNT Energy Equivalent:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent
> >
> > [4] Hiroshima "Little Boy" bomb's energy between 13 and 18
> > kilotons of TNT (54 and 75 Terajoule):
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy
> >
> > [5] About 63 terajoules were released by the atomic bomb that
> > exploded over Hiroshima:
> >
> > http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/publications/LANLHiroshimaNagasakiYields.pdf

> A meaningless comparison made only to induce some sort of fear.

I am sorry you were frightened. Maybe you should not participate
in Usenet.

> And that would still be true even if the CO2 part were proven fact.

There is no proof that CO2 exists, let alone that it caused the
current global temperature anomaly.

[AGWFacts]

Anyone who advocated AGW is a homicidal sociopath who should be
locked up and medicated.

[Bill Snyder]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 01:26:48 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell
<k...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:

[.sig block]

[C]limate scepticism seems strongest among geologists closely
linked to the mining and fossil fuel industries. Perhaps the words
of Upton Sinclair shine some understanding on the forces at play
here: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when
his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
-- John Cook, "Geologists and climate change denial", 9 Jun 2011

Mark Twain credited a slave he knew in his boyhood with, "You tell
me whar a man gits his corn pone, en I'll tell you what his
'pinions is."


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[Falcon]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 08:01:09 -0600
AGWFacts wrote...

>
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 23:47:04 -0500, Sam Wormley
> <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 5/13/12 6:54 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> > > Show your math to get to a number of 0.6 with units of W/m^2.
>
> > Data from about 1 million ocean temperature profiles show that the ocean
> > has been taking up heat at a rate of 0.6 W/m2 (averaged over the full

> > surface of the Earth) for the period 1993?2003.

> >
> > Ref: http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/PAPERS/willis_jgr_04.pdf
>
> Unfortunately the data for high latitudes has large error bars.
> ARGO was performed by "ships of opportunity:" the 3,000 expendable
> bathythermographs were used on ships that just happened to be
> going in the desired areas, with little representation in high
> latitudes.

Wrong again. ARGO was not performed by ships of opportunity, nor is it
anything to do with expendable bathythermographs. http://www.argo.net/

> Below the 900 meter depth, the average amount of energy taken up
> by the oceans in four years (2005 to 2008) was 0.77 watt m^2;
> above that depth, a bloody hell of a lot more than the 0.6 in the
> previous decade.
>
> Unfortunately a hell of a lot of energy is still "missing." We
> know Earth retained it because satellites measured energy going in
> and coming out, but the entire excess is still not accounted for.

I thought you said it had been found "exactly where [Trenberth] said it
would be"?

[Sam Wormley]

This jimp is easily agitated and just resorts to name calling instead
of articulating scientific arguments. He seems to have no interest in
the latter.

[Sam Wormley]

On wonders what it will take to reverse this swan dive!
http://avanimation.avsupport.com/sound/Kamikaze.wav

[R Kym Horsell]

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:

...

>> A meaningless comparison made only to induce some sort of fear.
>
> I am sorry you were frightened. Maybe you should not participate
> in Usenet.

Droll. :)

I think he's enough of a hermit as it is. USENET may be one of
the few social settings available, anxiety or no anxiety.

--
If scientists knew the actual numbers, they would not need to include
error bars. Good fucking grief. Read a fucking book about science some time.
-- Falcon <fal...@invalid.net>, 26 Apr 2012 17:45:28 +0100
[C.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant ].

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/13/12 6:54 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>>
>> Show your math to get to a number of 0.6 with units of W/m^2.
>>
>
> Data from about 1 million ocean temperature profiles show that the ocean
> has been taking up heat at a rate of 0.6 W/m2 (averaged over the full
> surface of the Earth) for the period 1993–2003.

That wasn't the question, ass hat.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:

This time the drooling idiot pastes in 75 lines of crap from other posts
in the vain attempt to show how clever he is at cut and paste.

What a moron.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

The arrogant, self rightous ass hat posting as swormley1 should eat shit
and die.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:

This time the drooling idiot pastes in 67 lines of crap from other posts
in a vain attempt to show how clever he is.

What an idiot.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics R Kym Horsell <k...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> ...
>>> A meaningless comparison made only to induce some sort of fear.
>>
>> I am sorry you were frightened. Maybe you should not participate
>> in Usenet.
>
> Droll. :)
>
> I think he's enough of a hermit as it is. USENET may be one of
> the few social settings available, anxiety or no anxiety.
>

Snort!!

Hermit, ass.

Perhaps it is largely because I am out and about in the real world instead
of being hunkered down in some bunker obsessing about arm waving media
puff pieces that I view all this scaremongering of doom and gloom over
a little warming to be childish nonsense.

[Tom P]

On 05/14/2012 03:26 AM, R Kym Horsell wrote:

> In alt.global-warming Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/13/12 2:31 PM, AGWFacts wrote:
>>> Previously I had written in these two newsgroups, several times,
>>> that the amount of energy being retained by Earth due to our
>>> release of CO2 into the atmosphere is equal to about 2,880
>>> Hiroshima Atom Bombs ("Big Boy") per day.
>>>
>>> I was horrible wrong, for which I apologize. That number is no
>>> where near the actual value.
>>>
>>>

>>> --
>>> "The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly
>>> on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent

>>> advocates of global warming aren?t scientists. They are murderers,

>>> tyrants, and madmen." -- The Heartland Institute cult
>>

>> Earth is gaining 0.6 W/m^2 or about 400,000 Hiroshima Atom Bombs/day.
>
> From off the top of my head it's mor elike 420,000 63 TJ bombs per day.
>
> I.e. 5e14 m2 at .6 W/m2 == 3e14 W by 86400 sec == 2.6e19 J.
>
> C.f. measly 63e12 J from a toy atomic bomb.
>

I get about 5 per second, but who cares about rounding errors.
$ python
Python 2.7.1+ (r271:86832, Apr 11 2011, 18:13:53)
[GCC 4.5.2] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> 5.1e8
510000000.0
>>> 5.1e8*1e6
510000000000000.0
>>> 5.1e8*1e6*0.6
306000000000000.0
>>> print 5.1e8*1e6*0.6
3.06e+14
>>> print 5.1e8*1e6*0.6/6.3e13
4.85714285714
>>>

[Tom P]

So why did you say it scared you?

[Will Janoschka]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 14:04:29, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com>

Yes, as in poorly put ! sorry! The "Joule" is the prefered unit of
measure for "heat"
or heat energy. Note: "Joule" is a "unit" of heat (measurement) not
heat itself!
A watt-second is easly "measured" to almost any degree of precision,
by electrical means.

A "Joule" is the equvalent hear energy of one watt-second. Their are
many forms of energy,
all of them the integral of power, over time. including
horespower-hours. All of these
forms, potential, (before the bomb goes off}, or kenetic, (after the
bomb goes off),
normally use the same units of measure, "Joules" as "heat" energy.

Your use of Joules with lotsa incorrect zeros is not a visualization,
but rather an effort
to awe, and confuse, the innocent. What is the energy received from
the Sun by the
Earth, per day, in kilotons? That would be a visualization, because
it would convey that
the earth is not a baseball, but instead, very large and massive,
along with a sensible heat
so large that, in fact, it takes a century, to change the earth
temperature by 0.5 Kelvin.

It would also "show" that the sum of all Anthropoidal efforts to
change anything, are so puny,
as to be inconsequental. Visualize that!!!!

there is no anomaly, the heat retained, 0.4% of received, is
persactly on schedule!

[Will Janoschka]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 13:52:13, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, 14 May 2012 08:26:47 +0200, Poutnik
> <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article posted Sun, 13 May 2012 19:59:07 -0500 to sci.physics,
> > Bill Snyder posted this..
>
> > > >> Show your math to get to a number of 0.6 with units of W/m^2.
>
> > > >It's 0.58 watt per square meter, plus or minus 0.15 watt per
> > > >square meter.
>
> > It must be also evaluated in context of Solar "constant",
> > that varies between cca 1300-1400 W / m2, as incoming radiant
> > flux to atmosphere.
>
> Yes. That value is 0.25 watt m^2
>

Good God go back to grade school

That is 1350 W/sq-M Mean! with a variance of between
32 to 50 W/sq-M depending on details. all above the atmosphere.

On the surface it is 10% or

135 W/sq-M with a variance of 40 W/sq-M, measured not calculated.

> The +0.58 watt m^2 value is above the solar variance mean.

Now, According to AWGFats, +0.58 W/sq-M is above 40 W/sq-M variance!


These are the folk that claim they can predict the earths future.

[Will Janoschka]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 14:02:36, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com>
wrote:

That is at least four more mistakes today!
The three zerros, are part, all of the rest of your digits
are also wrong.

[Bill Snyder]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 14:10:39 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
Janoschka) wrote:

>On Mon, 14 May 2012 13:52:13, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 08:26:47 +0200, Poutnik
>> <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > In article posted Sun, 13 May 2012 19:59:07 -0500 to sci.physics,
>> > Bill Snyder posted this..
>>
>> > > >> Show your math to get to a number of 0.6 with units of W/m^2.
>>
>> > > >It's 0.58 watt per square meter, plus or minus 0.15 watt per
>> > > >square meter.
>>
>> > It must be also evaluated in context of Solar "constant",
>> > that varies between cca 1300-1400 W / m2, as incoming radiant
>> > flux to atmosphere.
>>
>> Yes. That value is 0.25 watt m^2
>>
> Good God go back to grade school
>
>That is 1350 W/sq-M Mean! with a variance of between
>32 to 50 W/sq-M depending on details. all above the atmosphere.

Ludicrously wrong as usual, wackjob. It's the variation he's
talking about, and while it appears to be larger than 0.25 W/m^2,
it's way smaller than 32, let alone 50.

"Total solar output is now measured to vary (over the last three
11-year sunspot cycles) by approximately 0.1%,[3][4][5] or about
1.3 Watts per square meter (W/m2) peak-to-trough from solar
maximum to solar minimum during the 11-year sunspot cycle."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation>

>On the surface it is 10% or
>
>135 W/sq-M with a variance of 40 W/sq-M, measured not calculated.

Then let's see those measurements. Oops, we probably can't,
because the voices in your head can't be cited.

>> The +0.58 watt m^2 value is above the solar variance mean.
>
> Now, According to AWGFats, +0.58 W/sq-M is above 40 W/sq-M variance!
>
>
>These are the folk that claim they can predict the earths future.

And you are the loon who claims he can do grade-school arithmetic,
but is too chickenshit to try it in public.

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 14:10:39 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will

Janoschka) wrote:

> On Mon, 14 May 2012 13:52:13, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 14 May 2012 08:26:47 +0200, Poutnik
> > <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > In article posted Sun, 13 May 2012 19:59:07 -0500 to sci.physics,
> > > Bill Snyder posted this..
> >
> > > > >> Show your math to get to a number of 0.6 with units of W/m^2.
> >
> > > > >It's 0.58 watt per square meter, plus or minus 0.15 watt per
> > > > >square meter.
> >
> > > It must be also evaluated in context of Solar "constant",
> > > that varies between cca 1300-1400 W / m2, as incoming radiant
> > > flux to atmosphere.
> >
> > Yes. That value is 0.25 watt m^2

> Good God go back to grade school

Idiot.

> That is 1350 W/sq-M Mean! with a variance of between
> 32 to 50 W/sq-M depending on details. all above the atmosphere.

See:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/

Specifically Figure Two.

You're welcome


--
"Desertphile isn't dead..... darn." -- Rawbush (YouTube)

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 14:24:34 -0500, Bill Snyder
<bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 May 2012 14:10:39 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
> Janoschka) wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 14 May 2012 13:52:13, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 14 May 2012 08:26:47 +0200, Poutnik
> >> <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article posted Sun, 13 May 2012 19:59:07 -0500 to sci.physics,
> >> > Bill Snyder posted this..
> >>
> >> > > >> Show your math to get to a number of 0.6 with units of W/m^2.
> >>
> >> > > >It's 0.58 watt per square meter, plus or minus 0.15 watt per
> >> > > >square meter.
> >>
> >> > It must be also evaluated in context of Solar "constant",
> >> > that varies between cca 1300-1400 W / m2, as incoming radiant
> >> > flux to atmosphere.
> >>
> >> Yes. That value is 0.25 watt m^2
> >>
> > Good God go back to grade school
> >
> >That is 1350 W/sq-M Mean! with a variance of between
> >32 to 50 W/sq-M depending on details. all above the atmosphere.

> Ludicrously wrong as usual, wackjob. It's the variation he's
> talking about, and while it appears to be larger than 0.25 W/m^2,
> it's way smaller than 32, let alone 50.

The definitive study is published here, and elsewhere:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/

The median is 1,366. See specifically:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/fig2.gif

> "Total solar output is now measured to vary (over the last three
> 11-year sunspot cycles) by approximately 0.1%,[3][4][5] or about
> 1.3 Watts per square meter (W/m2) peak-to-trough from solar
> maximum to solar minimum during the 11-year sunspot cycle."
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation>
>
> >On the surface it is 10% or
> >
> >135 W/sq-M with a variance of 40 W/sq-M, measured not calculated.
>
> Then let's see those measurements. Oops, we probably can't,
> because the voices in your head can't be cited.
>
> >> The +0.58 watt m^2 value is above the solar variance mean.
> >
> > Now, According to AWGFats, +0.58 W/sq-M is above 40 W/sq-M variance!
> >
> >
> >These are the folk that claim they can predict the earths future.
>
> And you are the loon who claims he can do grade-school arithmetic,
> but is too chickenshit to try it in public.


--

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 17:34:06 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> This time the drooling idiot pastes in 75 lines of crap from other posts
> in the vain attempt to show how clever he is at cut and paste.

I am sorry that you were frightened. Usenet is not a good place
for you.

[Bill Snyder]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 14:13:41 -0600, AGWFacts

Ah, I see. Your 0.25 W is variation at the surface. That was a
bit confusing, since you were replying to a comment about the flux
to atmosphere.

[Tom P]

Where do you get 32-50 W/m2 variance from ?? The solar constant varies
by around 0.1%. If you mean the seasonal variation due to eccentricity,
that is less than 1.7%.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:

This time the brain dead idiot pastes in 87 lines of crap from other posts
in some vain attempt to be clever.

What a childish moron.

[Poutnik]

In article posted Mon, 14 May 2012 22:29:50 +0200 to sci.physics,
Tom P posted this..

> Where do you get 32-50 W/m2 variance from ?? The solar constant varies
> by around 0.1%. If you mean the seasonal variation due to eccentricity,
> that is less than 1.7%.

The actual direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere
fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1.412 kW/m^(2) in early
January to 1.321 kW/m^(2) in early July) due to the Earth's varying
distance from the Sun, and typically by much less than 0.1% from day to
day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant

--
Poutnik

[R Kym Horsell]

I can't find this para nor these numbers in the wiki page you cite.

OTOH I can see from the chart 1975--2005 the daily irradiance varies from
1.365 to 1.367 over the course of 1 year.
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png/280px-Solar-cycle-data.png>

The text says even UV component varies by 1.5% from solar minimum
to maximum.

And the total irradiance changed by no more than .1% from Maunder
Minimum and the present.

--
A milli-kelvin change the sun temperature would
result in a 1 kelvin change in earth temperature.
[Can't solve a(Ts+.001)^4 approx= b(Te+x)^4?]
Please do the numbers, so as, to prove to yourself,
that Hansens claims are Political BS.'
Logic does not work against Political BS!
-- Will Janoschka, 1 Mar 2012 7:18 PM

[Bill Ward]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 21:03:11 +0000, R Kym Horsell wrote:

> In alt.global-warming Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> In article posted Mon, 14 May 2012 22:29:50 +0200 to sci.physics, Tom P
>> posted this..
>>
>>
>>> Where do you get 32-50 W/m2 variance from ?? The solar constant
>>> varies by around 0.1%. If you mean the seasonal variation due to
>>> eccentricity, that is less than 1.7%.
>>
>> The actual direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere
>> fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1.412 kW/m^(2) in early
>> January to 1.321 kW/m^(2) in early July) due to the Earth's varying
>> distance from the Sun, and typically by much less than 0.1% from day to
>> day.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant
>>
>>
> I can't find this para nor these numbers in the wiki page you cite.
>
> OTOH I can see from the chart 1975--2005 the daily irradiance varies
> from 1.365 to 1.367 over the course of 1 year.
> <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Solar-cycle-
data.png/280px-Solar-cycle-data.png>
>
> The text says even UV component varies by 1.5% from solar minimum to
> maximum.
>
> And the total irradiance changed by no more than .1% from Maunder
> Minimum and the present.

From the wiki link above:

"Variations in total solar irradiance were too small to detect with
technology available before the satellite era."

How do you know, to within 0.1%, what the total solar irradiance was
during the Maunder Minimum?

[R Kym Horsell]

In alt.global-warming R Kym Horsell <k...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> In alt.global-warming Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> In article posted Mon, 14 May 2012 22:29:50 +0200 to sci.physics,
>> Tom P posted this..
>>> Where do you get 32-50 W/m2 variance from ?? The solar constant varies
>>> by around 0.1%. If you mean the seasonal variation due to eccentricity,
>>> that is less than 1.7%.
>> The actual direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere
>> fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1.412 kW/m^(2) in early
>> January to 1.321 kW/m^(2) in early July) due to the Earth's varying
>> distance from the Sun, and typically by much less than 0.1% from day to
>> day.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant
> I can't find this para nor these numbers in the wiki page you cite.

...

D'oh. No wonder. I was looking at .../Solar_variation. Funny, I though
I just clicked on the link in the article.
Plugging in apehelion/perihelion (1.52/1.47)^2 sure gets 1.069+.

--
[G]reenhouse gases have been an increasingly important contributor [to
global warming] since the mid-1800s and the major factor since the mid-1900s.
-- The Geological Society of America

[Poutnik]

In article posted Mon, 14 May 2012 21:03:11 +0000 (UTC) to sci.physics,
R Kym Horsell posted this..

> > The actual direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere
> > fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1.412 kW/m^(2) in early
> > January to 1.321 kW/m^(2) in early July) due to the Earth's varying
> > distance from the Sun, and typically by much less than 0.1% from day to
> > day.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant
> >
>
> I can't find this para nor these numbers in the wiki page you cite.

Maybe you have not searched for it, otherwise you would find it.
( 3rd sentence in 3rd paragraph )

It is logical, the yearly fluctuation has to be in ratio
cca ( 152 / 147 ) ^ 2 , what fits well the variance mentioned above.

>
> OTOH I can see from the chart 1975--2005 the daily irradiance varies from
> 1.365 to 1.367 over the course of 1 year.
> <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png/280px-Solar-cycle-data.png>
>
> The text says even UV component varies by 1.5% from solar minimum
> to maximum.
>
> And the total irradiance changed by no more than .1% from Maunder
> Minimum and the present.



--

Poutnik

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/14/12 12:35 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/13/12 11:50 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is no shame is calculation errors. We all do that.
>>>> Your concepts were sound. Thank you for your educational
>>>> efforts on USENET!
>>>
>>> "educational efforts" my ass.
>>>
>>> The only purpose to this meaningless comparison is to be scary, nothing
>>> more, ass hat.
>>>
>>
>> This jimp is easily agitated and just resorts to name calling instead
>> of articulating scientific arguments. He seems to have no interest in
>> the latter.
>
> The arrogant, self rightous ass hat posting as swormley1 should eat shit
> and die.
>
>

Perfect example, jimp, of your name calling!

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Perfect example of your arrogant, self rightous, ass hat attitude.

Eat shit and die.

[Will Janoschka]

The measured variation for both is about 2% for both, about +- 2
watts/ sq-M.
over short periods < 10 years!

Variance not variation. Statistical thing. The variance comes from the
limits.
50 W/sq-meter, linear, 32 W/sq-meter. gaussian. how do you do it?

If you wish to really want to blow your mind, tink of variability!
Something like the linoleumizationability of the kitchen (dirt) floor.
Huh!!! -will-

[bjacoby]

On 5/14/2012 1:26 AM, Uncle Ben wrote:
> On May 14, 12:06 am, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto"
> <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On May 13, 3:31 pm, AGWFacts<AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Previously I had written in these two newsgroups, several times,
>>> that the amount of energy being retained by Earth due to our
>>> release of CO2 into the atmosphere is equal to about 2,880
>>> Hiroshima Atom Bombs ("Big Boy") per day.
>>
>>> I was horrible wrong, for which I apologize.
>>

>> "Big Boy?" Is that a bomb, or a hamburger? P.S. I LOVE the science-
>> illiterate analogies you people come up with.

> That's not an analogy; that's what it was called by the people who
> made it.
>
> Hats off to AGWFacts for admitting an error, like a gentleman.

I love the way you warmists fundies constantly display your gross
ignorance in a world-wide public forum without any embarrassment.

Sorry "Uncle Ben", but the bomb used on Hiroshima was named "Little Boy"
by the people who made it. The plutonium bomb dropped on Nagasaki was
named "Fat Man". I just love the way you uneducated illiterate media
types pretend to know science to try to convince what you see as a
gullible public into believing in your so-called "scientific" warming
fraud.

I'll tell you what. You admit you are as big a moron as AGWFarts and
it's hats off to you too!

[Fredric L. Rice]

AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>Previously I had written in these two newsgroups, several times,
>that the amount of energy being retained by Earth due to our
>release of CO2 into the atmosphere is equal to about 2,880
>Hiroshima Atom Bombs ("Big Boy") per day.

>I was horrible wrong, for which I apologize. That number is no
>where near the actual value.

The actual number is around 4,070 or there-abouts.

---
http://www.skeptictank.org/

[Will Janoschka]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 12:58:49, bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

> On 5/14/2012 2:06 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 May 2012 03:52:55, bjacoby<bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
> >> I'm sorry this is too embarrassing for you, I can't even stand to watch
> >> any longer...
> >>
> >
> > Ben the 0.58 watts per sq meter of "earth cross sectional area"
> > retained. is close!
> > Earth receiver 140 watts per sq meter of "earth cross sectional area"
> > from the sun
> > at all times. That is, earth now retains 0.4% of sun power, much
> > less than the 1.3%
> > retained 100 years ago. This kinda indicates that a new ice age is
> > unlikely.
> >
> > " Kinda unlikely" is as close as earthlings will ever get to the
> > earths workings.
> >
> > Lotsa zeros create fear!!! Arithmatic? Did these clowns ever go to
> > school?
> > Perhaps they had Wormley as a teacher! -will-
>
>
> Did you begin by noticing the false premise that this "retained" heat is
> due to solely to CO2 AGW? Plus Wormley asserts this figure comes
> basically from ocean warming. (which is about the only thing easily
> measured). Is that true?
>
> "As shown in Figure 2, there has been no warming of the “Indian &
> Pacific Ocean Plus” sea surface temperature anomalies since 1995. That
> doesn’t mean that one of the individual ocean basins has not warmed. See
> Figure 5. The Indian Ocean (60S-30N, 20E-120E) sea surface temperature
> anomalies have warmed, except it’s at a rate that’s about 42% of what
> was simulated by the IPCC’s climate models. And as noted earlier, the
> North Pacific data shows that it has cooled. So has the South Pacific
> (60S-0, 120E-70W). Refer to Figures 6 and 7. Think about that for a
> moment. Not only has the largest ocean on this planet not warmed in
> agreement with the models, it’s actually cooled over the past 17 years."
>
> http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/what-do-observed-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-and-climate-models-have-in-common-over-the-past-17-years/
>
> Obviously not.
>
> So with a half percent of the sun's energy being retained in the earth
> each year, I presume that we all need to be scared that in a couple
> hundred years the oceans will be boiling and all life on the planet will
> cease? Allow me to point out that energy like CO2 is in an equilibrium.
> There are many mechanisms here (many not understood) that control this
> equilibrium. The idea of the energy of 400,000 nuclear bombs each year
> building up until the planet explodes is patent scientific nonsense as
> well as being based on lies.
>

No Ben the Ocean is just the big,big, big sensible heat Efalump in the
room!
The Ocean with its sensible heat is the reason the earth temperature
has
"only" changed by 0.5 Kelvin in a century. Everything is on schdule.

> So while actual principles of equilibrium are ignored, huge calculations
> with many zeros are used and compared to things the ignorant public can
> "understand" like nuclear bombs to create scare tactics. It's patent
> fraud. I dare say the earth is NOT going to explode from "retained"
> energy nor is all life going to be snuffed by "retained" CO2.

I do not know what you mean by equalibrium The heat of the earth has
never been in equalibrium with anything. Always trying to catch up
using the
most exquisite thermal control system EVAR! Earthlings cannot fuck
it up!
Plants (food) just love seasons! So do most other critters!

> Unfortunately since it's all politics now, no true speculations on
> unknown mechanisms are really permitted and no trustworthy data seems to
> be available any longer.
>
> But we can still be amused watching warmists trying to convert square
> kilometers to square meters or power to energy.
>
> (said like Homer Simpson looking at a donut)
>
> Zeros! Oooooo!
>

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:34:03 -0700 (PDT), DOUBLE-ACES
<kashmir...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:41:22 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 13 May 2012 19:59:07 -0500, Bill Snyder
> > <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 13 May 2012 18:23:50 -0600, AGWFacts
> > > <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Sun, 13 May 2012 23:54:02 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

> > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > >> > On 5/13/12 2:31 PM, AGWFacts wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> >> Previously I had written in these two newsgroups, several times,
> > > >> >> that the amount of energy being retained by Earth due to our
> > > >> >> release of CO2 into the atmosphere is equal to about 2,880
> > > >> >> Hiroshima Atom Bombs ("Big Boy") per day.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> I was horrible wrong, for which I apologize. That number is no
> > > >> >> where near the actual value.
> > > >

> > > >> > Earth is gaining 0.6 W/m^2 or about 400,000 Hiroshima Atom Bombs/day.
> > > >

> > > >> The Hiroshima bomb, Little Boy (not "Big Boy") released somewhere
> > > >
> > > >Yes: that is one of two errors I had made. The second error was
> > > >the estimate amount of energy released by the bomb.
> > > >
> > > >> between 54-75 TJ
> > > >
> > > >Aprox 63 terajoules according to Los Alamos. [4, 5]
> > > >
> > > >> and the surface of the Earth is about 510,000,000 km^2.
> > > >
> > > >Yes. 510,072,000,000 square meters. [1]
> >
> > > Isn't that about 3 orders of magnitude too low? 510 * 10^6 km^2
> > > is 510 * 10^12 m^2.
> >
> > WikiPedia states 510,072,000 km^2 so I added three zeros.
> > 510,072,000,000 m^2, or 510*10^9 which was *WRONG.* Damn it.
> >
> > My convertion program says 510,072,000 km^2 equals 5.10072e+014
> > m^2 which is 510,072,000,000,000 so you are 100% correct, and I am
> > 100% wrong once again.

> >
> > >>> Show your math to get to a number of 0.6 with units of W/m^2.
> >
> > > >It's 0.58 watt per square meter, plus or minus 0.15 watt per

> > > >square meter. [2] If I did the math correctly, Earth is retaining
> > > >anomalously, due chiefly to human-released CO2, 295,841,760,000
> > > >joules per second. That's 426 terajoules per 24 hours, or 6.78
> > > >Hiroshima atom bombs per day. If Sam Wormley or anyone else cares
> > > >to correct me, I will thank her or him very much for doing so.
> >
> > > That looks 'way off, too, unless I'm doing something very wrong.
> > >
> > > Lessee, 510 * 10^12 m^2 * 0.58 W/m^2 is about 296 * 10^12 W, or
> > > about 1000 times your figure per comment above. Multiply by
> > > 86,400 seconds/day to get around 2.55 * 10^19 J, or 2.55 * 10^7
> > > TJ.
> >
> > 295,841,760,000,000 joules for 86,400 seconds, given a surface
> > area of 510,072,000,000,000 square meters at 0.58 watt per square
> > meter. 25,560,728,064,000,000,000 Joules a day.
> >
> > > It looks like maybe you multiplied by the number of minutes
> > > in a day, rather than the number of seconds.
> >
> > You are right, I am once again wrong, damn me.
> >
> > 25,560,728,064,000,000,000 Joules a day
> >
> > 62,760,000,000,000 One Hiroshima bomb
> >
> > 407,277 Hiroshima bombs per day.
> >
> > Thank you for the correction. I was indeed off by three orders.

> >
> > [1] Earth's surface area:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
> >
> > [2] Current energy imbalance due to increased atmospheric CO2:
> >
> > http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/
> >
> > [3] TNT Energy Equivalent:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent
> >
> > [4] Hiroshima "Little Boy" bomb's energy between 13 and 18
> > kilotons of TNT (54 and 75 Terajoule):
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy
> >
> > [5] About 63 terajoules were released by the atomic bomb that
> > exploded over Hiroshima:
> >
> > http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/publications/LANLHiroshimaNagasakiYields.pdf

> Do scientist use wikipedia for information on technical theories? or
> is it just you who does that?

Are you claiming the value for Earth's surface area given in
WikiPedia is wrong? If so, why don't you edit the page and fix it?

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 20:19:38 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> This time the brain dead idiot pastes in 87 lines of crap from other posts
> in some vain attempt to be clever.
>
> What a childish moron.

I already apologized for frightening you.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:

This time the brain dead child pastes in 111 lines of crap not in the
original post.

What an idiotic moron.

This is a good example of the great thinking behind AGW.

[Tom P]

Both? The solar constant is calculated for a fixed distance of exactly
1AU. The solar cycle causes a periodic change in the solar constant, but
the measured values since 1975 are less than +/- 1 W/m2.
The percentage seasonal variation of the total solar irradiance caused
by the eccentricity of the orbit is approximately double the
eccentricity, but this has virtually no effect on the total irradiance
over the year.

[Will Janoschka]

Calculated? Total would be in J/sq-M why are you using W/sq-M.
is that some sort of average?

>
> > Variance not variation. Statistical thing. The variance comes from the
> > limits.
> > 50 W/sq-meter, linear, 32 W/sq-meter. gaussian. how do you do it?
> >
> > If you wish to really want to blow your mind, tink of variability!
> > Something like the linoleumizationability of the kitchen (dirt) floor.
> > Huh!!! -will-
>

If you want variance. look at the variance of power provided by the
solar panels
on the space station. Poutnik is close 1300-1400 W/sq-M incident
radiant flux.
This variance shows what the sun "is" doing, not what it is supposed
to do.

Those tha use averages when integrals are required are bound to fail.
That is why, along with stupid assumptions, the AGW folk fail. We have
only
this one planet. Their numbers are always incorrect, yet they sitll
insist others
pay for sequestering CO2, so they can profit.

The AGW folk are so far away from understanding or calculating what
the earth
is doing, their publishing anything at all, is proof of no science.
They cannot
even say what is important. All the real science folk say, "I do not
know".

[gordo]

When someone uses a term like AGW folk you know he is full of heifer
dust. The scientists are not AGW folk . They are scientists from all
over the world who contribute to the science reported by the IPCC
reports. You also make a statement "Their numbers are always
incorrect" yet you have not provided one per review study that refutes
any of the studies.

Here is a stupid statement "yet they still insist others
pay for sequestering CO2, so they can profit." The they being the AGW
folk I presume? When did the scientists who provided the science to
the IPCC ever say how sequestering CO2 should be paid for? In Canada
the government of Canada and the governments of Alberta are providing
billions of tax dollars for sequestering and for studies when it
should be industry who pays . You may be fine with figures but you are
very short on the truth Will.

[Fredric L. Rice]

bjacoby <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>On 5/14/2012 1:26 AM, Uncle Ben wrote:
>> On May 14, 12:06 am, "$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto"
>> <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 13, 3:31 pm, AGWFacts<AGWFa...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>>>> Previously I had written in these two newsgroups, several times,
>>>> that the amount of energy being retained by Earth due to our
>>>> release of CO2 into the atmosphere is equal to about 2,880
>>>> Hiroshima Atom Bombs ("Big Boy") per day.
>>>> I was horrible wrong, for which I apologize.
>>> "Big Boy?" Is that a bomb, or a hamburger? P.S. I LOVE the science-
>>> illiterate analogies you people come up with.
>> That's not an analogy; that's what it was called by the people who made it.
>> Hats off to AGWFacts for admitting an error, like a gentleman.
>I love the way you warmists fundies constantly display your gross
>ignorance in a world-wide public forum without any embarrassment.

When any of your intellectual superiors exhibit any gross ignorance,
you'll let us know, won't you, Mary? Thanks in advance for your
prompt assistance.

---
http://www.skeptictank.org/

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 22:23:19 -0600, AGWFacts

See? LOL!


--
"A 'crank' is defined as a man who cannot be turned." --- _Nature_, 8 Nov 1906

[AGWFacts]

On Tue, 15 May 2012 04:44:34 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> This time the brain dead child pastes in 111 lines of crap not in the
> original post. What an idiotic moron. This is a good example of the
> great thinking behind AGW.

Appears Mental.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:

<snip 109 lines of crap pasted in from other posts>


> Appears Mental.


When you paste in 109 lines of crap from other posts, yes, you do appear to
be very mental.

[SunDancer]

AGWFacts wrote :

What? Who? Where?

--
The Dawlish : Weather is not climate unless I say it is.

[AGWFacts]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 17:17:04 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> > Appears Mental.

> When you paste in 109 lines of crap from other posts, yes, you do appear to
> be very mental.

Did you talk to your doctor about the irrational fear you
mentioned two days ago?

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:

This time the brain dead child pastes in 119 lines of crap from other
posts to to which he adds to lines to indicate that he has no clue what I
said previously, proving once again he is unable to understand simple English.

What a buffoon, i.e. a perfect poster boy for AGW.

[Wally W.]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 13:31:20 -0600, AGWFacts wrote:

Why do you think an error by you is news?

[AGWFacts]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 00:41:31 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> This time the brain dead child pastes in 119 lines of crap from other
> posts to to which he adds to lines to indicate that he has no clue what I
> said previously, proving once again he is unable to understand simple English.
>
> What a buffoon, i.e. a perfect poster boy for AGW.

I assume that's a "No." Please consider it.

[AGWFacts]

On Wed, 16 May 2012 21:15:57 -0400, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com>
wrote:

> On Sun, 13 May 2012 13:31:20 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>
> > Previously I had written in these two newsgroups, several times,
> > that the amount of energy being retained by Earth due to our
> > release of CO2 into the atmosphere is equal to about 2,880
> > Hiroshima Atom Bombs ("Big Boy") per day.
> >
> > I was horrible wrong, for which I apologize. That number is no
> > where near the actual value.

> Why do you think an error by you is news?

No.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:

This time the childish, illiterate buffoon pastes in 133 lines of crap
from other posts.

Not only a buffoon, but a boring buffoon.

[AGWFacts]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 04:27:39 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> This time the childish, illiterate buffoon pastes in 133 lines of crap
> from other posts.
>
> Not only a buffoon, but a boring buffoon.

Still a "No?"

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:

This time it is 147 lines of crap from other posts pasted in showing
what one can expect from an illiterate child.

[AGWFacts]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 16:47:05 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> This time it is 147 lines of crap from other posts pasted in showing
> what one can expect from an illiterate child.

So your answer is "Yes, it's still 'No." Doesn't that bother you
any?

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:

This time it is 161 lines of crap from other posts pasted in and still
zero understanding of the English language.

What an utter buffoon.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/14/12 7:36 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> Perfect example of your arrogant, self rightous, ass hat attitude.
>
> Eat shit and die.
>
There you go again, jimp!



I've go a couple of "must read" articles for you, jimp:

> In this week’s eSkeptic, Donald R. Prothero addresses climate change denialism head on, demolishing deniers’ arguments and rebuttals, and clearly demonstrating how we know global warming is real and human caused. Read Prothero’s bio after the article.
> http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/#feature
>
> How We Know Global Warming is Real
> and Human Caused
> by Donald R. Prothero


> HOW WE KNOW GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL: The Science Behind Human-induced Climate Change
> By Dr. Tapio Schneider
>
> http://www.skeptic.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/v14n01resources/human-induced_climate_change.pdf
>
> Dr. Tapio Schneider discusses the science behind human-induced climate change. He is a climate scientist and Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering at the California Institute of Technology.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/14/12 7:36 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> Perfect example of your arrogant, self rightous, ass hat attitude.
>>
>> Eat shit and die.
>>
> There you go again, jimp!

Yes, you continue to be an arrogant, self rightous, ass hat.

> I've go a couple of "must read" articles for you, jimp:

Read something from here, ass hat:

http://junkscience.com/


BTW, eat shit and die.

[AGWFacts]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 12:46:20 -0500, Sam Wormley
<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/14/12 7:36 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> > Perfect example of your arrogant, self rightous, ass hat attitude.
> > Eat shit and die.

> There you go again, jimp!
>
> I've go a couple of "must read" articles for you, jimp:
>
> In this week’s eSkeptic, Donald R. Prothero addresses climate change
> denialism head on, demolishing deniers’ arguments and rebuttals, and
> clearly demonstrating how we know global warming is real and human
> caused. Read Prothero’s bio after the article.
> http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/#feature
>
> How We Know Global Warming is Real
> and Human Caused
> by Donald R. Prothero

Dr. Shermer did not ask me to review the article before
publication. I feel.... slighted.

> HOW WE KNOW GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL: The Science Behind Human-induced Climate Change
> By Dr. Tapio Schneider
>
> http://www.skeptic.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/v14n01resources/human-induced_climate_change.pdf
>
> Dr. Tapio Schneider discusses the science behind human-induced
> climate change. He is a climate scientist and Professor of
> Environmental Science and Engineering at the California
> Institute of Technology.

net.k00k ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com does not like science being
posted to science newsgroups. It frightens him.

[AGWFacts]

On Thu, 17 May 2012 18:08:53 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

wrote:

> > On 5/14/12 7:36 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> > > Perfect example of your arrogant, self rightous, ass hat attitude.
> > > Eat shit and die.
>
> > There you go again, jimp!
> >

> > I've go a couple of "must read" articles for you, jimp:
> >

> > In this week’s eSkeptic, Donald R. Prothero addresses climate change
> > denialism head on, demolishing deniers’ arguments and rebuttals, and
> > clearly demonstrating how we know global warming is real and human
> > caused. Read Prothero’s bio after the article.
> > http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/#feature
> >
> > How We Know Global Warming is Real
> > and Human Caused
> > by Donald R. Prothero
>
> > HOW WE KNOW GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL: The Science Behind Human-induced Climate Change
> > By Dr. Tapio Schneider
> >
> > http://www.skeptic.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/v14n01resources/human-induced_climate_change.pdf
> >
> > Dr. Tapio Schneider discusses the science behind human-induced
> > climate change. He is a climate scientist and Professor of
> > Environmental Science and Engineering at the California
> > Institute of Technology.

> Yes, you continue to be an arrogant, self rightous, ass hat.

Sane people write "Thank you."

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> yet again:

Does his childish cut and paste from other posts pretending, i.e. lieing,
that I posted it.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> cut and pasted in:

A pile of crap from other posts thinking that his lie that I posted it
would not be noticed.