Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.

Scott wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Scott wrote:

Out of interest could you point me to your published papers?

Sure you look up my name.


Unfortunately there are hundreds of S Firths.

What area are they in?

What's it to you?


Since you asked "Pyriform" for his qualifications and what papers he
had published I assumed you would be willing to reciprocate. I seems
I was mistaken or you have something to hide.

If you look at a selection of his previous posts you can find out all about
him. It isn't particularly interesting, but you will see he is an
argumentative **** whose arrogance frequently exceeds his knowledge. Other
posters sometimes refer to him as "Steve Filth". He claims to have done some
medical research, and now he grows olives - which of course makes him
uniquely well-qualified to comment on matters of climate science.

I did come across this little gem in my rather brief piece of research:

http://www.digitaltoast.co.uk/mad/dl/FirthChat.mp3

Pyriform wrote:

If you look at a selection of his previous posts you can find out all about
him. It isn't particularly interesting, but you will see he is an
argumentative **** whose arrogance frequently exceeds his knowledge. Other
posters sometimes refer to him as "Steve Filth". He claims to have done some
medical research, and now he grows olives - which of course makes him
uniquely well-qualified to comment on matters of climate science.

Oh look the approach of the net loon "I've Googled all your posts."

Steve Firth wrote:
Pyriform wrote:

If you look at a selection of his previous posts you can find out all about
him. It isn't particularly interesting, but you will see he is an
argumentative **** whose arrogance frequently exceeds his knowledge. Other
posters sometimes refer to him as "Steve Filth". He claims to have done some
medical research, and now he grows olives - which of course makes him
uniquely well-qualified to comment on matters of climate science.

Oh look the approach of the net loon "I've Googled all your posts."

Save me googling, Is he right?

Steve Firth wrote:
Scott wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Scott wrote:

Out of interest could you point me to your published papers?
Sure you look up my name.

Unfortunately there are hundreds of S Firths.

Shame.

What area are they in?
What's it to you?

Since you asked "Pyriform" for his qualifications and what papers he had
published

No I didn't.


Do you not recall the following exchange?
------------------------------------------------------
Go on, claim to be a scientist, that's good for a laugh.
What do you claim to be, apart from an idiot with no understanding of
science?
I am a scientist, with a decent career behind me. Ad hominem noted.
I see. So it's ok for you to laugh at my scientific credentials,

Your non-existent scientific credentials, I can't find a single paper
published by a Mr Pyriform.

-------------------------------------------------------



I assumed you would be willing to reciprocate. I seems I was mistaken
or you have something to hide.

Or maybe you and Prattiform are both silly arses?

No, I think you have overstated your qualifications. I don't think you any more
than an undergraduate degree in a non-numerate discipline, Biochemistry perhaps?

Steve Firth wrote:
Scott wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Scott wrote:

There is only one input source, the Sun
Geothermal energy not present in your view of the world then?
CO2 radiative forcing in measured in W/M^2, Geothermal flux in mW/m^2. I
wouldn't appeal to that as an explanation of global warming.

You said "There is only one input source, the Sun" you were wrong.



Average solar radiation 1370 W/m^2, average geothermal flux of the order of
0.005 W/m^2.


I could have said you had an ounce of common sense that would be wrong as well.

Doh wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
Pyriform wrote:

If you look at a selection of his previous posts you can find out all
about
him. It isn't particularly interesting, but you will see he is an
argumentative **** whose arrogance frequently exceeds his knowledge.
Other
posters sometimes refer to him as "Steve Filth". He claims to have
done some
medical research, and now he grows olives - which of course makes him
uniquely well-qualified to comment on matters of climate science.

Oh look the approach of the net loon "I've Googled all your posts."

Save me googling, Is he right?

Yes, undergraduate degree in biochemistry with a bit of geology thrown in:

http://tinyurl.com/ywdn5g

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 00:42:04 +0100, Scott
wrote:

Yes, to the extent that other sources are negligible in comparison.

Are you sure about that? If you were to put your hand a cm above a
candle flame, would you say that its effect was negligible compared
with the energy produced by the Sun? *Local* effects can domino.

NO THEY CANT! The amount of energy needed to raise the global temperature of
the Earth by a even a hundredth of a degrees is absolutely enormous. Local
effects don't have enough energy to do that.

Showing that you have totally failed to understand that the effects
are *indirect*.

To give a
simple example. An undersea rift causes a local heating effect over a
protracted period due to released (redistributed) geothermal energy.
The amount of energy itself is indeed negliible wrt the total energy
input to the Earth - but because it is localised its effect might be
to completely change the direction or intensity of an ocean current.

It has no effect on *GLOBAL* average temperature. If the warm water doesn't go
in one direction it will go in another and some place will be hotter than
before. It's all about energy conservation.

Again, you miss the point entirely.

That in turn can lead to a warming or cooling of a substantial area of
land - which may expand or contract an ice cap in a way that has not
been predicted.

But it can't affect the average *GLOBAL* temperature. The energy released is
not sufficient and it hasn't been sufficient since the Earth cooled down 4
billion years ago. Any volcanic sulphates released only last a year or two.

And again.

It will also have a great effect on long term weather of a region,
affecting many factors and lead to an increase or decrease of the
average cloud cover over a large area. That in turn changes the
amount of the Sun's energy that reaches the Earth rather than being
reflected back into space.

Fantasy physics.

No. Indirect causality - something that it would appear you are
unable to grasp. A 1KG force is far to small to move the rudder of a
big ship to any significant extent. It is minute compared to the
water force on the rudder. But apply that force to a *trim tab* on
the rudder, and it will *indirectly* cause huge forces to be exerted,
and the rudder will move, turning the ship.

Sea plant growth is similarly affected, which affects the CO2 content
of the ocean and therefore its ability to take in Co2 from the
atmosphere.

Secondary effect, irrelevant to determining the energy balance. The CO2 level
is a *given* factor.

So you assert, yes. I do not accept that it is.

[They might be important in predicting the future but that
is a separate question].

Huh?? The whole global warming thing is about what is going to happen
in the future, is it not?

Not entirely. I'm trying to get you to walk first before you attempt a
marathon.

Let me know when you've managed to walk in that case so we can talk
about the issue under discussion - which is the *future* situation.

I'm trying to get you to consider the energy balance
problem first, before trying to predict the future.

You are trying to teach your grandmother to suck eggs - and not doing
a terrifically good job, I'm afraid. Energy balance depends on energy
input as well as output, but you don't appear to understand that the
average amount reaching the surface of the Earth is a *variable*.

Considering the energy balance as simplistically as you are making out
is of no use whatsoever in determining the future.

It is only simple to the extent that I haven't specified the effect of each
individual halocarbon etc in order to have space. It is exactly what is
necessary to reduce the problem to one of predicting the future values of those
factors.

No, it is because you refuse to acknowlege that indirect effects
matter - and matter a lot.

What you are failing to see is the distinction between a value and its
predicted value in the future. If you give me the temperature, pressure and
moisture content of the air I can tell you exactly if it will rain or not.

That statement proves conclusively that your grasp of the physics
involved is way too simplistic to be of any use whatsoever

You reckon? Really? With *only* those 3 factors? Let me test you.
I'll look up an aftercast at a random date, time and location.

OAT 15.4 deg C. Relative humidity 82%. Raw atmospheric pressure
993mB. In case you were imprecise regarding pressure, sea level
equivalent was 998mB.

Various other factors are also recorded, but those are the only 3 you
say you need.

Was it raining at the time? Did it rain at that location on that day?
As a bonus, what is recorded as the cloud type(s) & cover next to that
entry, and the recorded wind speed & direction?

Here is a simple explanation:
http://www.krysstal.com/rain.html

I did not ask for an explanation, I asked you to answer the question
that you claimed to be able to answer if you knew just those three
factors. You clearly stated "If you give me the temperature, pressure
and moisture content of the air I can tell you exactly if it will
rain or not." I gave you those three things. You were unable to tell
me whether it rained.

Of course, I knew full well that you would not be able to do so,
because your claim is ridiculous. Those 3 factors play only a *part*
There are many other factors that *must* be taken into account in
order to have any chance of prediction. Which the link you provided,
simple though it is makes clear - you should perhaps read it yourself.

All in all, you have proven that you believe that you can ignore the
complexity entirely, and use a very simplistic model and still get
meaningful results. You cannot.

Oh - and you might also look at the result on a system of a *delayed*
negative feedback before you dismiss my statement that it can result
in wide excursions from the mean. A car rolling down a hill was an
inappropriate analogy because the application of brakes does not cause
a delayed action. An aircraft's phugoid tendency would be a better
place to start looking for analogies in terms of movement.

--
Cynic

On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 03:04:13 +0100, Scott
wrote:

You said "There is only one input source, the Sun" you were wrong.

Average solar radiation 1370 W/m^2, average geothermal flux of the order of
0.005 W/m^2.

Small inputs in the right place can greater effects than huge inputs
elsewhere. In Africa, your life is likely to be affected more by the
mosquito than by the elephant.

I could have said you had an ounce of common sense that would be wrong as well.

It is amazing how often "common sense" turns out to be totally
incorrect - especially in areas of physics. Perhaps you are applying
a tad too much, and the sort of sense required is, unfortunately,
*not* that common?

--
Cynic

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

Given that you were asking me to literally name every single reputable
climate scientist in the world my comment was neither personal nor
subjective. It was a clear and objective assessment of your incredible
inability to address the serious matters at hand.
Bwhahahahahaahaha.

"Even you"

Ad hominem.
Objective

Nope.

assessment

Hah, you are ****ing joking, right?

of the likelihood of anyone else being stupid enough to ask for so
ridiculous a thing. Now, want to try dealing with the point instead of
pointless avoidance?

Sure, the point is that despite being given adequate time you haven't
even made a start on the project. Loser.

Come on - even you *cannot* seriously expect me to name every single
reputable climate scientist on the planet... even though that *is*
what you foolishly asked me to do!

Now, stop avoiding it and deal with the actual point.

Scott wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Scott wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Scott wrote:

There is only one input source, the Sun
Geothermal energy not present in your view of the world then?
CO2 radiative forcing in measured in W/M^2, Geothermal flux in mW/m^2. I
wouldn't appeal to that as an explanation of global warming.

You said "There is only one input source, the Sun" you were wrong.



Average solar radiation 1370 W/m^2, average geothermal flux of the order of
0.005 W/m^2.

You said "There is only one input source, the Sun" you were wrong.

I could have said you had an ounce of common sense that would be wrong as
well.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense would not make emphatic statements
that are incorrect. Now if only you had typed "there is one main input
source" you wouldn't be sitting there wearing a KoKo the Klown outfit.