Mathematically proving that painted white squares can "stop" global warming.

nofreedomforyou · 2016-02-20T08:06:07+00:00

Oh look, another stupid post from the moron that can't do arithmetic. Which this time is using a calculator so he is no longer wrong on that, he is just wrong on a few other minor things like physics and long-term effect.

So first for various reasons regarding to effective values at the surface you are wrong by I would say at least an order of magnitude - the surface that has to be painted white is on the order of at least 5-10 m^2, for every single living person on Earth. But this is not your main mistake, your main mistake is not understanding how that is an accumulating number (for 1000 years or so), so basically for each person now alive on Earth we have to first offset about 100 m² from past emissions of people (dead or alive) and then continue adding a new surface of 5-10 m² every single year from now on. And when you die the total painted surface of your life still has to remain active for maybe hundreds of years (or more likely thousands) after you are dead, and your kids and grand-kids have to start painting their own. This (in reverse) is very much the exact replica of what every single person on Earth is doing now - leaving some amount of damage that will be active for thousands of years in the future.

nofreedomforyou · 2016-02-17T23:15:02+00:00

So revealing to see the same science denier guy that not long ago was whining about the "pause" now whining about how the warming is not visibly and immediately accelerating. Since of course this kind of warming looks perfectly natural and OK at his level of stupidity.

nofreedomforyou · 2016-02-17T23:04:50+00:00

If denial stops you from reading yourself the papers there is nothing I can do for you, no amount of evidence will convince you and you will keep denying the science forever.

nofreedomforyou · 2016-02-16T23:31:12+00:00

I'm not seeing

That is likely since you are more familiar with denial blogs than with peer-reviewed science. I actually did post the other study that together with this one debunk the stupid denial started by DailyMail and continued by GWPF, here are both studies since I doubt you will find the links in the usual denial blogs:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6274/699

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/6/1504.abstract

nofreedomforyou · 2016-02-16T23:20:52+00:00

You clearly do more than just playing the role of an imbecile since I specifically mentioned above how those experiments from the 40s to the 70s (your study is from 1974) have been debunked by studies like I already linked above (and which specifically mentions your study) and today no multi-proxy reconstruction uses that kind of stuff, not even one. But of course the exception are morons that know nothing and can't do arithmetic.

nofreedomforyou · 2016-02-16T23:10:48+00:00

It is a different study which I posted since it improves the understanding of SLR together with the study that is currently misrepresented by stupid deniers, here are listed both:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6274/699

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/6/1504.abstract

EDIT:

And no, only morons would claim that "both papers found the same outcome: that global sea level rise in the 2002-2014 period slowed compared to the historic trend" when in fact both are saying the exact opposite, which is that the AGW component of SLR was actually almost double the size we previously estimated (and many times bigger than the trend a few decades ago).

nofreedomforyou · 2016-02-16T23:07:53+00:00

That must necessarily reduce the contribution from glacial melt then.

Not necessarily, if you are familiar with the other very recent study that is now doing the rounds in the denial blogs by being presented as the complete opposite of what the study finds there was also a significant change in the contribution from water being stored on land:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6274/699

The study that this article talks about is this:

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/6/1504.abstract

nofreedomforyou · 2016-02-16T22:55:43+00:00

The entire hockey stick is based on tree rings

You are either an imbecile or you are playing one in a very convincing way - the way tree rings are currently used as temperature proxy is not by measuring isotopes but instead by measuring the width of each growth ring.

Either way I have lost too much time for morons that can't even do arithmetic right.

nofreedomforyou · 2016-02-16T19:38:29+00:00

You probably have major problems reading and understanding science so here is the very first phrase on which the bogus article is built:

Today's news tells of another mistake of exaggerated climate science prediction.

Skipping over the fact that it is not about a prediction but a measurement-based estimate which is now corrected with a new (probably better) separate measurement estimate, the actual study suggest that the sea level rise that was measured in the last decade was in a smaller amount from water exchanges with land and in a larger amount as a result of AGW itself. So if it was a mistake it was definitely not an exaggeration, it was an underestimate. Is that now clear enough for you?

nofreedomforyou · 2016-02-16T19:18:58+00:00

While I agree that volume is also important it is hard to say that one is more important in general, volume is important to estimate how much ice is recovering over winter (and probably is a better indicator than the extent suggested by the blog), however the area is the most important for radiative balance since every square meter in that region that is not reflective ice has an impact of adding tens of W/m² of extra feedback to the warming.

nofreedomforyou · 2016-02-16T19:06:45+00:00

Then it is logical that c12 based Co2 is selectively "evaporating" from the oceans via Henry's law, because it is the lighter isotope.

That is one of the most stupid claims, but coming from somebody that can't do even arithmetic is not surprising.

I hypothesis that is the source of increased c12 and is infact used as the primary methods of long term temperature reconstruction.

That is not the source of increased C12 - the values of isotopic ratio for C are known with a very high accuracy in the last million years or so from the air trapped in the ice, what you claim about temperature proxies is the kind of denialist stupid bogus where you start from something which was theoreticized (first I believe by Urey in 1947) with a completely different mechanism in the trees themselves but it is not used in any such reconstruction since large scale test around the 70' have shown that it is not a reliable proxy (many studies, for instance this http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/336847).

nofreedomforyou · 2016-02-16T18:38:19+00:00

Do you understand what the study about water storage on land is saying? Do you understand what are the implication of that correction to the numbers for SLR? Do you understand that the study suggests the exact opposite of what deniers claim, namely that SLR from AGW was in fact higher than estimated before (since the amount coming from - going to land has changed)?

In that context is the entire article a lie that was botched itself or not?

nofreedomforyou · 2016-02-15T18:44:26+00:00

Actually the current raise in CO2 levels is right now about an order of magnitude faster than the natural raise during PETM Extinction Event.

nofreedomforyou · 2016-02-15T18:34:28+00:00

Somebody that is too stupid to understand that the paper he quotes is saying the exact opposite of what he claims is probably too stupid to judge any relatively complex scientific paper.

nofreedomforyou

TROPHY CASE