User talk:George2wiki

Welcome!

Hello, George2wiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of talkpages

The talk pages are there to discuss improvements to the article, not to repeat the same stuff again and again. I cut:

You still can't go making up new physics because the real physics doesn't support your case. The whole case for anthropomorphic forcing hinges on this estimate of climate sensitivity. The estimates being pushed are at least 3-4 times too large. The upper limit for the first principles affect of doubling CO2 is 0.7K. Claiming that this gets magnified into 3-8K is silly. If you do the analysis, such a system would be horribly unstable and would oscillate wildly with very short periods (if feedback is properly clamped) or predict runaway events. This is not what we see. We see a climate system that is very robust, properly damped and which has recovered from significant insults, like large volcanoes and impact events. Please do not remove the4 POV tag as this is far from resolved.

Please don't restore it. You need to read the policies you are being pointed at William M. Connolley (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please adhere to WP policy (Climate sensitivity)

One of these is that original research isn't allowed. We go solely by what reliable sources tell us. In this case, the reliable sources is the scientific literature. It doesn't even matter if you are right or not.... See: WP:NOTTRUTH. Another policy is that talk pages are reserved singularily for discussing improvements of the article, and such discussions must be based in what reliable sources tell us. Using wikipedia as a soapbox for your own understanding of things - is not allowed. Sorry.

Find reliable sources that support your assertions directly and without interpretation. Thank you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice the links that i made in the above, each of these will get you to an important policy page about what you can and cannot do on Wikipedia. Please read them. These are also linked in the welcome message at the top of your page, amongst other useful information about Wikipedia. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am pointing out irreconcilable inconsistencies in the content of these pages. The point here is to be correct or at least non biased relative to a controversial issue, per wp:NPOV and wp:verifiability. As references to support my concerns, I generally cite first principles and other wiki references built upon them as a way to discredit a notable wp:fringe theories. Hiding the fact that this is a controversial issue by removing references to conflicting information is itself a violation of [[wp:NPOV]. Furthermore, all of the pages I've looked at that Mr. Connelly champions, seem to reflect the same kind of bias, which is another reason to apply the POV tag, moreover;this individual is systematically adding bias to links which support alternative hypotheses. Having reviewed many of the references for this topic, they all seem to reference back to ice cores as the basis for establishing greenhouse forcing. This is incorrect and the ice cores irrefutably show that CO2 is indicative of past temperature change and not predictive of future change George2wiki (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Climate sensitivity

I hate agreeing with the two posts above, but they are correct, wikipedia is not interested in the truth but only in what is published in other sources.

That aside, I have a few comments on what you wrote.

I have been trying to find an experimental method for determining "CO2 forcing". As far as I can tell, these numbers are simply made up by Manabe 1975, Hansen 1988, and others.

Yes. These are all linear approximations with empirical coefficients that assume greenhouse gas forcing. The only calculated value is from stephan-boltzmann which predicts 0.7C rise from doubling CO2 and even this is an overestimation.George2wiki (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that "conservation of energy is violated by treating energy re-radiated from CO2 absorption ...".

I think you are wrong in this. Perhaps you have misunderstood what the papers say. The atmosphere absorbs certain frequencies from the Sun and different frequencies from the Earth. If you treat this as a circuit diagram with multiple voltage (heat) sources, then you will see the errors in their reasoning and that, with a better analysis, conservation of energy is not violated.

Energy absorbed by greenhouse gases and ultimately re-emitted to the surface, or back into space, is solar energy from an earlier time. There is a steady state pool of energy retained by the atmosphere, but the flux entering and exiting are in balance. The action of greenhouse gases is not to retain energy forever or to add new energy to the system, but to delay the ultimate release of incident solar energy. Models tend to count solar energy and the atmospheric energy as new energy entering the system.

"Greenhouse gases and clouds act as a capacitor to store heat energy for later release."

The atmosphere itself is the capacitor, the greenhouse gases are the resistor that discharges the capacitor, which explains how they "delay the release of energy from the system". Clouds have multiple functions which need to be modeled separately. I model convection as a diode in series with a smaller resistor.

Yes, greenhouse gases capture specific frequencies of surface or atmospheric energy and then transfer this to the other molecules of the atmosphere via collisions which re-emits it at new frequencies, some of which may be reabsorbed by other greenhouse gases.George2wiki (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with "not a forum", I also believe that a good encyclopedia will present common counter theories and then explain why they are wrong. Simply deleting mention of opposing views is never the correct approach. However, your approach is no better, you need to produce sources that support what you are saying, or you need to do the research yourself and get published in a quotable source. Q Science (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Climate_sensitivity are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Per WP:V we aren't interested in your (or my) opinion[1], nor even in the truth. But *singularly* with what reliable sources tell us. Calling scientific papers "a bunch of self referential, incestuously reviewed papers" is out of order - and a break of policy. Please stop. Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]