Agro, that last post was by your idiot twin, right?

255K = -18.15

288K = + 14.85

Minus and plus. Plus 14.85, rounded to PLUS 15C.

The asymptote to 1 was an example I thought I’d put up to clarify a point. Waste of time eh with you carrying on like a pork chop. No room for decaying exponentials here; more like decaying intelligence.

Speaking of Agro’s twin Bugsy says:

“As the analyte concentration decreases, the path length increases? Yes, if A is constant, but A is a measurement and won't be constant, it will increase as the analyte concentration increases.”

Actually ‘a’ is not a function of the density and distribution of the absorber, only on the number of absorber molecules present. And as Miskolzi’s work shows ‘a’ and the optical depth of the atmosphere haven’t changed. Therefore despite the increase in CO2 A also has effectively not changed as the temperature pause reflects.

What I can’t understand is if the IPCC is correct about the effect of CO2 on temperature then according to T^4 if increasing CO2 is radically increasing the available RF then the temperature response should be going through the roof. It isn’t.

The IPCC’s position and yours appears to be a classic case of Ipse dixit.

Mr Cox, I think I will just leave your little calculation there for all to see.

Next time you make a claim about something involving numbers, we will all recognize that you cannot add up.

Well Agro is up early; just finishing his paper run I guess. Don't forget the Tele has just gone up in price Agro; minuses and pluses, adding and subtracting. Remember get your cents right and the dollars will follow. Unless you're an AGW scientist with no sense and the dollars still come.

What a world; so many smart people acting stupid.

ITS TOO 'graph'ic/sic*..for ME..I IKE THINGS WITH LINKS
BUT LIKE THE PREVIOUSLY POSTED LINK..or rather the dead links they lined into..reveal far more than a graph..that tops off at the same level times two

anyhow warmist..concepts fLOATED WITH TRUMPETS..then quietly allowed to die

The dead link/only collection

Acne, Africa hit hardest, African summer frost, agricultural land increase, Alaska reshaped, anxiety, Arctic tundra to burn, atmospheric defiance, bananas destroyed, beer shortage, bird distributions change, blizzards, boredom, brain eating amoebae, business opportunities, business risks, British gardens change, budget increases, cardiac arrest, cataracts, challenges and opportunities, cloud stripping, cremation to end, damages equivalent to $200 billion, dermatitis, desert life threatened, diarrhoea, disappearance of coastal cities, Dolomites collapse, drought in distant regions, drowning people, early marriages, early spring, Earth spinning out of control, Earth wobbling, evolution accelerating, extinctions (bats, pigmy possums, koalas, turtles, orang-utan, elephants, tigers, gorillas, whales, frogs,) fainting, fish catches rise, flames stoked, footpath erosion, glacial growth, global dimming, god melts, Gore omnipresence, Great Lakes drop, harmful algae, hazardous waste sites breached, high court debates, HIV epidemic, human health improvement, ice shelf collapse, jet stream drifts north, lake and stream productivity decline, lightning related insurance claims, little response in the atmosphere, lost $350 billion, Lyme disease, marine dead zone, Maple production advanced, mental illness (Alberta), migration difficult (birds), mountains melting, mudslides, oceans noisier, oyster diseases, ozone loss, Pacific dead zone, plankton destabilised, plankton loss, plant viruses, polar bears starve, psychosocial disturbances, popcorn rise, rainfall reduction, riches, rivers dry up, rockfalls, ruins ruined, skin cancer, smelt down, snowfall reduction, stick insects, stormwater drains stressed, teenage drinking, terrorism, tree beetle attacks, trees could return to Antarctic, tree growth increased, tsunamis, tundra plant life boost, uprooted - 6 million, Vampire moths, violin decline, walrus displaced, war, war between US and Canada, water scarcity (20% of increase), water stress, water supply unreliability, weeds, white Christmas dream ends, wine - harm to Australian industry, World bankruptcy, World-famous places threatened, World in crisis, World in flames,

Suggestions for replacement links are welcome.

Total (dead and alive) 883
Last updated 05/03/12

Cohenite, you are getting self-contradictory here.

You state:
“A=a x b x c
Where A is the measured absorbance, a is a wavelength-dependent absorptivity coefficient, b is the path length, and c is the analyte concentration.”

Then go on to say:
“Actually ‘a’ is not a function of the density and distribution of the absorber, only on the number of absorber molecules present.”
Huh?, isn’t it the wavelength absorbitivity coefficient? c is in the analyte concentration , so it is a function of the of the density and distribution of the absorber.

Anyway, you go on to say:
“And as Miskolzi’s work shows ‘a’ and the optical depth of the atmosphere haven’t changed.” So ‘a’ and ‘b’ haven’t changed according to Miskolzi. OK, but c certainly has, CO2 is increasing that is indisputable.

Then you say:
“Therefore despite the increase in CO2 A also has effectively not changed as the temperature pause reflects.”
Well, Miskolzi’s work purports to show that A has hasn’t changed (his work isn't widely accepted, but we will run with it).
Therefore, unless ‘a’ or ‘b’ HAVE changed your statements are self-contradictory.

It’s turning into a thought salad, I would suggest you don’t add any more vinegar.

Dear Bugsy,

Sorry mate, was just rereading the thread and saw you had put a proposition to me which I had not picked up.

You wrote;

“Steele, I think you are far too generous. If the 'zero' is entirely arbitrary, then you cannot take quantitative values from it.”

The reason why there are negative values on Viv's graph is because the anomaly figures are based around a zero point which is indeed arbitrary, in this case it is the average of the 20th century temperatures as used by NOAA.

I did manage to reproduce his graph although it took some rather implausible manipulation to do so. It can be found here.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AihqN3dTawKwdEk0TWxGcmZrdElSaUdQaGJBSlFoLUE&usp=sharing

Please note THIS IS NOT A NOAA GRAPH!

The first graph takes the two sets of figures and illustrates a straightforward, on the ground, relationship between human emissions and temperature rise. Note: you do get a hint of Viv's figures in that the greatest difference between the two lines is at 1943.

The second is the relationship after Viv had finished with it, only really made remarkable by the arbitrary zero.

So yes the graph can have negative figures but you are entirely correct when you say you can not take quantitative values from it thus when Viv asserts “the impact of each tonne has decreased, significantly - currently it stands at +0.00000000000021°C/tonne” he is of course talking through his hat!