On Oct 30, 2:07 pm, Whata Fool wrote:
qzectb wrote:
On Oct 29, 10:36 pm, Whata Fool wrote:
qzectb wrote:
I'm done with this lunatic.

Then how about some original discussion about any
actual measurements of absorption under the SST in the Arctic
and the energy flux through the surface of water there.

Find someone who has both the expertise on that particular subject and
the time to waste on people who are convinced that they know better.

Someone involved in the study of the Earth's incoming and
outgoing energy should know a little about optics, as a lot of the
incoming and a little of the outgoing is at optical frequencies.

Is there _any_ direct application of actual measurements
other than in computer models?

The primary purpose of actual ground-level measurements of radiation,
which can only be made at a few select locations, is twofold:

(1) to retrieve information about the evolving temperature and
humidity structure of the atmosphere in a more continuous (and less
expensive, in the long term) way than would be possible with
conventional weather balloons, and

There is absolutely nothing wrong with obtaining data
and recording it.

(2) to validate and improve models of radiative transfer in the
atmosphere, so that the role of radiation can be assessed more
accurately at the many locations where no direct observations are
possible.

There is nothing wrong with that either, it is only the attempt
to use that information to develop a precise accounting of the
energy content of the Earth that can cause a problem.

In the absence of water, it would be a lot easier to develop
precise models, or rather if the amount of water were evenly
distributed, or the exact amount known for every square mile.

Note that (1) is a direct application. Note also that (1) would be
impossible if the radiative transfer models weren't already pretty
damned good. Decades of experience have shown that we CAN accurately
retrieve temperature and humidity structure from both satellite- and
ground-based radiation measurements. This clearly puts the lie to
assertions that the models are wrong, that CO2 doesn't emit at 15 um,
and all kinds of other pseudointellectual ******y seen in this thread.

It really doesn't help the modeling avoid the claim of
inaccuracy, and you should have enough confidence to just
ignore statements that you know are not correct, obviously CO2
emits at a spike near 15um, the question may be "how much"
at temperatures much cooler than the surface, and how much
through cloud cover, etc.

Why has meteorology gone from data recording and short
term useful weather predictions to climate change and totally
useless long term future disaster predictions?

It hasn't.

Are you leaving open to claim the future disaster predictions
are valid, or that meteorology does not do that?

Or is this kind of candid discussion reserved for those
who feel a need to publish before discussion.

Candid discussion is useful with people who are starting from a shared
foundation of acknowledged facts,

If that were true, what would discussion accomplish, just
pats on the back and agreement with nothing new, no new ideas,
no questions raised in the minds of any of the participants?

or at least who are open to having
their foundation of facts expanded and, if necessary, revised in light
of new evidence.

Does that mean only those not trained in a discipline?

I would think that every educated person would be open
for that, and the more teaching experience they have, the more
they would realize how important it is to have discussions, with
almost anybody at almost any level, time permitting.

more of fools follies, you are a man who lacks integrity and avoids
real discussions, by posting rhetorical questions in such a manner as
to confuse the issue as much as possible. That is not the trade mark
of a teacher, but a person who is lobbying for a political cause or
acting as a public relations person. Now combine the fact you lack
integrity, with your motivation to lobby a cause, and you no longer
have the credibility warrant the serious attention to carry on a civil
intelligent conversation. So i guess you really like to read your own
words of non-ending rhetoric, which is simply based on you expressing
your un-happiness and attempting to boost your overly inflated ego,
but you must keep failing because you keep trying with no success....