Major analysis confirms global warming is real

On Oct 22, 3:55*pm, Mike Collins wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1021144716.htm

Besides the slight solar variables and what 7 billion of us
contribute, how can our moon not add heat to the whole body of Earth?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 10/30/11 8:17 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Oct 22, 3:55 pm, Mike wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1021144716.htm

Besides the slight solar variables and what 7 billion of us
contribute, how can our moon not add heat to the whole body of Earth?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

See:
http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaW...ce_moon_aj.pdf

On Oct 30, 6:45*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 10/30/11 8:17 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

On Oct 22, 3:55 pm, Mike *wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1021144716.htm

Besides the slight solar variables and what 7 billion of us
contribute, how can our moon not add heat to the whole body of Earth?

*http://translate.google.com/#
* Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

* *See:http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaW...ocs/kieffer_st...

Good one.

Ever heard of the 1220 w/m2 of secondary IR that's given off by our
moon?

Ever hear of tidal heating other than the usual value that's given as
to ocean tidal related energy per hour speculated as roughly 3 TW (2
TW from our moon)?

Are you suggesting that our physically dark, massive and extremely
nearby moon doesn't modulate our entire planet?

Some research has the global ocean tidal energy worth as great as 5 TW/
hr, so it's kind of hard for myself to exclude or obfuscate as to
whatever the whole flexible Earth is having contributed by way of
those gravity tidal forces. Obviously mainstream parrots and FUD-
masters like yourself have no problems with obfuscation and denial of
being in denial.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 10/30/11 3:21 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
Ever heard of the 1220 w/m2 of secondary IR that's given off by our
moon?

How much enters the earth's atmosphere, Brad?


Modeling the Infrared Spectrum of the Earth-Moon System: Implications
for the Detection and Characterization of Earthlike Extrasolar Planets
and their Moonlike Companions
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3744

Tyler D. Robinson
(Submitted on 17 Oct 2011)
Large surface temperatures on the illuminated hemisphere of the Moon can
lead it to contribute a significant amount of flux to spatially
unresolved infrared (IR) observations of the Earth-Moon system,
especially at wavelengths where Earth's atmosphere is absorbing. We have
paired the NASA Astrobiology Institute's Virtual Planetary Laboratory
three-dimensional spectral Earth model with a model of the phase
dependent IR spectrum of a Moonlike satellite to investigate the effects
of an unresolved companion on IR observations of Earthlike extrasolar
planets. For an extrasolar twin Earth-Moon system observed at full phase
at IR wavelengths, the Moon consistently comprises about 20% of the
total signal, approaches 30% of the signal in the 9.6 micron ozone band
and the 15 micron carbon dioxide band, makes up as much as 80% of the
total signal in the 6.3 micron water band, and more than 90% of the
signal in the 4.3 micron carbon dioxide band. These excesses translate
to inferred brightness temperatures for Earth that are too large by
about 20-40 K, and demonstrate that the presence of an undetected
satellite can have a significant impact on the spectroscopic
characterization of terrestrial exoplanets. The thermal flux
contribution from an airless companion depends strongly on the
star-planet-observer angle (i.e., the phase angle), allowing moons to
mimic or mask seasonal variations in the host planet's IR spectrum, and
implying that observations of exoplanets should be taken when the phase
angle is as small as feasibly possible if contributions from airless
companions are to be minimized. We show that, by differencing IR
observations of an Earth twin with a companion taken at both gibbous
phase and at crescent phase, Moonlike satellites may be detectable by
future exoplanet characterization missions for a wide range of system
inclinations.

See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.3744v1

Brad Guth wrote:
On Oct 30, 6:45 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 10/30/11 8:17 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

On Oct 22, 3:55 pm, Mike wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1021144716.htm

Besides the slight solar variables and what 7 billion of us
contribute, how can our moon not add heat to the whole body of Earth?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet

See:http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaW...ocs/kieffer_st...

Good one.

Ever heard of the 1220 w/m2 of secondary IR that's given off by our
moon?

Ever hear of tidal heating other than the usual value that's given as
to ocean tidal related energy per hour speculated as roughly 3 TW (2
TW from our moon)?

Are you suggesting that our physically dark, massive and extremely
nearby moon doesn't modulate our entire planet?

Some research has the global ocean tidal energy worth as great as 5 TW/
hr, so it's kind of hard for myself to exclude or obfuscate as to
whatever the whole flexible Earth is having contributed by way of
those gravity tidal forces. Obviously mainstream parrots and FUD-
masters like yourself have no problems with obfuscation and denial of
being in denial.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet
Tidal energy and reradiated IR from the Moon are effectively constant and
therefore need not be considered.
The net effect of tides is to transfer rotational energy to the moon,
slowing down the Earth's rotation and increasing the Moon's orbital speed .

On Oct 30, 2:13*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 10/30/11 3:21 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

Ever heard of the 1220 w/m2 of secondary IR that's given off by our
moon?

* *How much enters the earth's atmosphere, Brad?

Modeling the Infrared Spectrum of the Earth-Moon System: Implications
for the Detection and Characterization of Earthlike Extrasolar Planets
and their Moonlike Companions
* *http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3744

Tyler D. Robinson
(Submitted on 17 Oct 2011)
Large surface temperatures on the illuminated hemisphere of the Moon can
lead it to contribute a significant amount of flux to spatially
unresolved infrared (IR) observations of the Earth-Moon system,
especially at wavelengths where Earth's atmosphere is absorbing. We have
paired the NASA Astrobiology Institute's Virtual Planetary Laboratory
three-dimensional spectral Earth model with a model of the phase
dependent IR spectrum of a Moonlike satellite to investigate the effects
of an unresolved companion on IR observations of Earthlike extrasolar
planets. For an extrasolar twin Earth-Moon system observed at full phase
at IR wavelengths, the Moon consistently comprises about 20% of the
total signal, approaches 30% of the signal in the 9.6 micron ozone band
and the 15 micron carbon dioxide band, makes up as much as 80% of the
total signal in the 6.3 micron water band, and more than 90% of the
signal in the 4.3 micron carbon dioxide band. These excesses translate
to inferred brightness temperatures for Earth that are too large by
about 20-40 K, and demonstrate that the presence of an undetected
satellite can have a significant impact on the spectroscopic
characterization of terrestrial exoplanets. The thermal flux
contribution from an airless companion depends strongly on the
star-planet-observer angle (i.e., the phase angle), allowing moons to
mimic or mask seasonal variations in the host planet's IR spectrum, and
implying that observations of exoplanets should be taken when the phase
angle is as small as feasibly possible if contributions from airless
companions are to be minimized. We show that, by differencing IR
observations of an Earth twin with a companion taken at both gibbous
phase and at crescent phase, Moonlike satellites may be detectable by
future exoplanet characterization missions for a wide range of system
inclinations.

See:http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.3744v1

So you get to play dumb parrot. Got it.

On Oct 30, 2:36*pm, Mike Collins wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Oct 30, 6:45 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 10/30/11 8:17 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

On Oct 22, 3:55 pm, Mike *wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1021144716.htm

Besides the slight solar variables and what 7 billion of us
contribute, how can our moon not add heat to the whole body of Earth?

*http://translate.google.com/#
* Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / *Guth Usenet

* *See:http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaW...ocs/kieffer_st...

Good one.

Ever heard of the 1220 w/m2 of secondary IR that's given off by our
moon?

Ever hear of tidal heating other than the usual value that's given as
to ocean tidal related energy per hour speculated as roughly 3 TW (2
TW from our moon)?

Are you suggesting that our physically dark, massive and extremely
nearby moon doesn't modulate our entire planet?

Some research has the global ocean tidal energy worth as great as 5 TW/
hr, so it's kind of hard for myself to exclude or obfuscate as to
whatever the whole flexible Earth is having contributed by way of
those gravity tidal forces. *Obviously mainstream parrots and FUD-
masters like yourself have no problems with obfuscation and denial of
being in denial.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / *Guth Usenet

Tidal energy and reradiated IR from the Moon are effectively constant and
therefore need not be considered.
The net effect of tides is to transfer rotational energy to the moon,
slowing down the Earth's rotation and increasing the Moon's orbital speed

On 10/30/11 11:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Oct 30, 2:36 pm, Mike wrote:
Brad wrote:
On Oct 30, 6:45 am, Sam wrote:
On 10/30/11 8:17 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

On Oct 22, 3:55 pm, Mike wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1021144716.htm

Besides the slight solar variables and what 7 billion of us
contribute, how can our moon not add heat to the whole body of Earth?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet

See:http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaW...ocs/kieffer_st...

Good one.

Ever heard of the 1220 w/m2 of secondary IR that's given off by our
moon?

Ever hear of tidal heating other than the usual value that's given as
to ocean tidal related energy per hour speculated as roughly 3 TW (2
TW from our moon)?

Are you suggesting that our physically dark, massive and extremely
nearby moon doesn't modulate our entire planet?

Some research has the global ocean tidal energy worth as great as 5 TW/
hr, so it's kind of hard for myself to exclude or obfuscate as to
whatever the whole flexible Earth is having contributed by way of
those gravity tidal forces. Obviously mainstream parrots and FUD-
masters like yourself have no problems with obfuscation and denial of
being in denial.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet

Tidal energy and reradiated IR from the Moon are effectively constant and
therefore need not be considered.
The net effect of tides is to transfer rotational energy to the moon,
slowing down the Earth's rotation and increasing the Moon's orbital speed .

Your obfuscation and denial is noted. Good job.

Brad, when you cannot articulate a scientific argument with any merit,
you resort to attacking, disparaging and belittling the messenger--a
common trait of a crackpot.

On Oct 30, 9:25 pm, "Peter Webb"
wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

...



On 10/30/11 11:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
On Oct 30, 2:36 pm, Mike wrote:
Brad wrote:
On Oct 30, 6:45 am, Sam wrote:
On 10/30/11 8:17 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

On Oct 22, 3:55 pm, Mike wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1021144716.htm

Besides the slight solar variables and what 7 billion of us
contribute, how can our moon not add heat to the whole body of Earth?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet

See:http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaW...ocs/kieffer_st...

Good one.

Ever heard of the 1220 w/m2 of secondary IR that's given off by our
moon?

Ever hear of tidal heating other than the usual value that's given as
to ocean tidal related energy per hour speculated as roughly 3 TW (2
TW from our moon)?

Are you suggesting that our physically dark, massive and extremely
nearby moon doesn't modulate our entire planet?

Some research has the global ocean tidal energy worth as great as 5 TW/
hr, so it's kind of hard for myself to exclude or obfuscate as to
whatever the whole flexible Earth is having contributed by way of
those gravity tidal forces. Obviously mainstream parrots and FUD-
masters like yourself have no problems with obfuscation and denial of
being in denial.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / Guth Usenet

Tidal energy and reradiated IR from the Moon are effectively constant
and
therefore need not be considered.
The net effect of tides is to transfer rotational energy to the moon,
slowing down the Earth's rotation and increasing the Moon's orbital
speed .

Your obfuscation and denial is noted. Good job.

Brad, when you cannot articulate a scientific argument with any merit,
you resort to attacking, disparaging and belittling the messenger--a
common trait of a crackpot.

For some examples of what he is saying, check this very thread.

Chris L Petersen, 26/10/2011:

"Ah, the local representative of the fruitcake society removes his head
from the sand long enough to squeak."

Chris L Petersen, 26/10/2011:

"They've all been answered before- and by people who, unlike yourself,
understand science.

Your science denialist tactic of asking the same questions over and
over, ignoring the answers already given, might work with the peanut
gallery on pseudoscience sites like that of Watts, but you're on a
science forum here... way out of your depth."

Chris L Petersen, 26/10/2011:

"You don't have the intellectual capacity to understand them- as
demonstrated many times. I'm not wasting my time on a science denier."

I hope these illustrate what Petersen means when he says "when you cannot
articulate a scientific argument with any merit, you resort to attacking,
disparaging and belittling the messenger--a common trait of a crackpot."

Petersen was unable to articulate a scientific argument with any merit, so
he resorted to attacking, disparaging and belittling the messenger--a common
trait of a crackpot.

So you can see that what he is saying about crackpots is true. Of course, he
should know.
HTH
Peter Webb

There are problems agreeing on the measurement of temperature,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...colleague.html

They should be using Tucker's climatometers.
Ken

"OG" wrote in message
...
On 28/10/2011 01:53, Peter Webb wrote:

"OG" wrote in message
...
On 26/10/2011 05:39, Peter Webb wrote:

"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:54:26 +1100, "Peter Webb"
wrote:

Perhaps you can provide a link to the answers?

You don't have the intellectual capacity to understand them- as
demonstrated many times. I'm not wasting my time on a science denier.

So you can't give me a link to the answers.

Which rather makes a lie of your statement that you have provided them
many times before.

Here is a hint, for those unfamiliar with science. If you can't define
a
term, then you can't make scientific statements regarding that term.
Have a look at what regular sciences do. For example, Einstein's theory
or relativity states there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity.
Einstein first defined this concept (and some others regarding
simultaneity) before making any statements concerning its properties.

In fact, in all sciences you will find the terms that it uses to be
well
defined. Chemistry defines terms like pH, mole, triple point, partial
pressure, polymer, ion, valence and many others, which is a
pre-condition for being able to talk about properties like pH, mole,
triple point, partial pressure, polymer, ion, and valence.

If climate "science" is to make statements about "global warming" (as
indeed the title of this thread does), then it has to define the term.

All I want is the definition of this term, such that given a
temperature
record we can determine whether "global warming" was occurring at that
time.

For example, was global warming occurring in 1961?

It is a very simple question. It just requires you to define "global
warming". Why won't you do that? Does it have a definition, or is it a
meaningless term?

Which day in 1961?

The definition requires daily temperatures?

You seem to think so


No, you asked for the day. If it doesn't require daily temperatures, why
have you asked "which day in 1961?" ?


So without daily temperatures, we have no way of knowing if global
warming is "real" ?

Do you really think so?


I don't know. I keep saying that I don't know how the earth's "warming rate"
is defined, but nobody will tell me the definition.

Why won't you?


Given the fluctuations due to weather and the earth's elliptical orbit,
about half of the days in a year will be cooler than the day before and
half warmer. So about half of each year the earth is experiencing global
warming and about half we are experiencing global cooling?

Isn't this what you want - a very precise definition that can be pinned
down to a single year?

No, I want to know how climatologists define the earth's "warming rate". I
don't know if it can be pinned down to a single year. Why don't you just
tell us the definition, instead of avoiding it?



For what days did the "Major Analysis conforms global warming is real"?
Because if global warming cuts in and out on a daily basis, I am
interested to know what days they confirmed it was happening ...


So if a daily basis is a stupid idea, what is the point of requiring a
definition for a single year?

I don't.

I just want to know how climatologists define the earth's "warming rate". As
in statements like "the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate" or
"global warming will intensify".

Why won't you just post the definition? It does have a meaning, right? What
is it?