From Luciebee

quote:

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

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

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

quote:

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

Thanks, it just come naturally!

quote:

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

My bad, I get it now(4πr2)

Mufc

quote:

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

I hope this addresses your question.

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

mufcdiver.

quote:

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

I fully concur muf!

Best regards, suricat.

Geoman.

quote:

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

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

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

Best regards, suricat.

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
mufcdiver.

quote:

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

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

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

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

suricat.

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

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

mufcdiver.

quote:

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

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

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

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

Best regards, suricat.

mufcdiver.

quote:

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

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

I'll see you "elsewhere" perhaps.

Best regards, suricat.

mufcdiver.

quote:

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

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

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

Best regards, suricat.

mufcdiver.

quote:

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

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

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

Best regards, suricat.

*Simples*

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
mufcdiver.


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

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

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

quote:

Originally posted by suricat:
mufcdiver.

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

Best regards, suricat.

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

Mufc

quote:

Where does everyone go when they're not here?

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

mufcdiver.

quote:

Where does everyone go when they're not here?

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

Best regards, suricat.

mufcdiver.

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

Best regards, suricat.

mufcdiver.

quote:

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

Don't really care! Just don't get too stressed with your move.

Best regards, suricat.