Ferro Are you for real! You have shown no professional or...

First 168 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
tinnitus

23,078 Posts.

30

20/10/14

18:21

Post #: 14151389
Share

Originally posted by ferronium ↑

Tin

A favourite saying of mine is "ignorance is curable but stupidity is terminal".

Let me cure your ignorance by pointing out Foster and Rahmstorf's stupidity ...

Firstly, the Earth is on average a comfortable, warm, wet planet because it orbits the Sun at just the right distance - not too little not too much. The corollary is that for the distance at which the Earth orbits the Sun the Sun's irradiance is just right - not too little not too much.

Secondly, a negative TSI implies that if the Sun's irradiance increases the Earth will cool! The corollary is that if the Sun's irradiance decreases the Earth will warm. In which case I am just thankful we are not orbiting a Red Dwarf otherwise we will all have been vapourised by now.

You may have guessed what I am going to say next ...

Foster and Rahmstorf were so focussed on reinforcing the CO2 furphy, by discrediting TSI etc., that they did not even bother to perform a physical reality check on what the implications were for a negative TSI finding, being the result of an amateur analysis by MLR. This is the type of mistake that an under-graduate student would make in a class assignment. I would hope that even you would have anticipated that TSI should be positive, even if it was a very small positive number. Their analysis method should have at the very least constrained TSI to being not less than zero (a thermodynamic boundary condition).

I can but conclude that these guys are stupid, or at the very least grossly incompetent.

Expand

Ferro
Are you for real!
You have shown no professional or scientific approach to attempting to peer review the paper by Foste et al.

Please attempt at least a scientific rebuttal that highlights particular aspects in detail that the paper is wrong . This will need to be backed by you references that show that the line of reasoning you are using is accepted.

So at the moment Foster et al's paper stands.
2 Upvote

Reply