I understand that. They still don't factor the variables in correctly, and even claim a low level of understanding. The models are only trusted by those who fit on the first part of the DK curve. These model cannot be assumed to be accurate until all the variables involved have a very high level of understanding. D-K... The German word Dummkopf comes to mind too...Originally Posted by Quaestio
Anonymous poster critiques a published paper yet has nowhere near the experience of the authors, reviewers or editors on the topic.
The only way it can get stupider is for him to claim the *authors* are on the left hand side of the Dunning Kruger curve.
Aaaand... let’s see if he can go for the hat trick and double down!
Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.
Actually, in this case, two of the authors I know to be activists. I think they are very skilled at deception.
You ‘know’ this?
Why?
Because they publish stuff that you don’t agree with, even though you have virtually no basis for being able to evaluate their work?
Many Trump supporters have lots of problems, and those deplorables are bringing those problems to us. They’re racists. They’re misogynists. They’re islamophobic. They're xenophobes and homophobes. And some, I assume, are good people.
That's completely irrelevant to the question of "what would the surface temperature be if all CO2 were removed from the atmosphere". Try to pay attention. Or how about YOU answer the question?
"The inexperienced, the crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but you can immediately see that they are wrong" -Richard Feynman
“A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.” Bertrand Russell
The point is that models are flawed.
"It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan
So you CAN'T show your calculations or explain the physical processes for your absurdly wrong answer of "about 40 F or more"?
I think you need to give yourself a stern talking to. Here you go:
"The inexperienced, the crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but you can immediately see that they are wrong" -Richard Feynman
“A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.” Bertrand Russell
No, The point is you can't answer the question "what would be the surface temperature of the earth if all CO2 was removed?"
LOP accused Media Truth of getting it wrong (he wasn't) and of being "ignorant", then LOP got it wildly wrong himself and can't explain his answer. You don't actually need a model for the answer- it's physics.
"The inexperienced, the crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but you can immediately see that they are wrong" -Richard Feynman
“A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.” Bertrand Russell
If you actually want to know the answer to "what would the surface temperature be if all CO2 were removed from the atmosphere".
you would also have to eliminate the other variables.
Since your citation stated,
"After removing CO2 and the other non-condensing GHGs (but not the condensing GHG water vapor), water vapor would end up dropping by about 90% and the earth would be pretty much a snowball with an average surface temperature of around -18C to -21C. "
you would have to strip out the water vapor and at least the CH4.
You would also have to decide where ZERO CO2 actually is, is it 1 part per million, or 1 part per billion?
It becomes important as it would take 10 doubling s to go from 1 ppm to near present level,
but almost 20 doubling s to go from 1 ppb.
No matter what the temp drop for zero CO2 is, it would have to be less than the aggregate of CO2 and the other non-condensing GHGs ,
and include the 90% drop in water vapor described in their scenario.
LOL! This is textbook stuff. But then again, has this self-proclaimed "expert" ever actually read any textbooks in this field?
Last edited by Quaestio; 02-12-19 at 05:12 PM.
"The inexperienced, the crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but you can immediately see that they are wrong" -Richard Feynman
“A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.” Bertrand Russell
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote