From APOD:
(click on image for full resolution, totally awesome!)
Here is an equally stuning video of that prominence erupting:
Ironic that according to the IPCC that massive ball of fire has nothing to do with the climate which is entirely controled by CO2, isn't it?
(As humour is hard to detect on the internets I had better spell it out: the IPCC makes no such ridiculous claim, that is a denialist strawman. The sun sends around 343W/m^2 our way, but the important factor is change in that number, which since around 1850 is ~0.3W/m^2 while GHG direct forcing is ~2.5W/m^2. Kinda ruins the spontenaity of a joke having to be so careful, oh well)
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Atmospheric Layers, The Biosphere, The Boundary Layer, Microclimate and Inadequate Tim Ball thinking
I was - I still am - going to write a post about my recent adventures in "skeptic" land, but I've got distracted by Atmospheric Layers, The Biosphere, The Boundary Layer, Microclimate and Inadequate IPCC Models which is comically incompetent. To a degree that I found hard to believe. There's an…
It's in the graun, so it must be true. However, just for once I'm going to agree with them. So, quick summary: Minnesota has a social cost of carbon, ish, and a Commission to quantify and establish a range of environmental costs associated with each method of electricity generation; and requires…
There's another comment by Andy Lacis at Climate Etc., and just like the original its deeply under-appreciated by the residents. Indeed it would have been unappreciated by me because I don't read her posts much less wade into the comments unless someone draws my attention.
Before we go onto AL's…
The most damning thing about Christopher Monckton's testimony to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming on global warming science (video here), is the fact that the Republicans could not or would not get a single scientist to testify.
His main argument is based on the…
"GHG direct forcing is ~2.5W/m^2"? Another master of global warming theory who failed high school math.
I am redeemable, teach me!
Numbers only have meaning in comparison to other numbers. "2.5W/m^2" is the _computed_ total "greenhouse" warming for all CO2 currently in the atmosphere. Due to the orbital eccentricity of the earth, solar irradiation varies by ~100W/m^2. But heck, why screw up a good theory with extra information when the objective is to find a solution to a nonproblem? According to greenhouse theory, the "average" temperature of the earth is 33 K. greater than what it would be in the absence of an atmosphere. But that analysis is faulty. If the earth had a thicker atmosphere, the surface temperature would be higher due to thermodynamics. Greenhouse theory is inconsistent with the laws of thermodynamics. Greenhouse theory is snake oil salemanship and so long as it is held out to be true, climate science will not advance.
(Anonymous is the same poster as David above)
Ah, okay, you're a crackpot.
I don't know what your particular flavour is, but you can read why "the GHE contradicts the laws of thermodynamics" is bunk here. What's your, err, reasoning?
How about a source regarding a variation of 100W/m^2 due to orbital dynamics? If you have one, it is not refering to a globally averaged figure. 2.5W/m^2 is the change in CO2, CH4, NO2 etc's GHE, I don't think what you described even makes sense.
Hey Coby,
I have the TM on the word "crackpot" and all its variants if you use it again i will have to charge you a fee.
Remember humour is hard to detect on the internet.