I am not the only one who shivers every time "solar mirros" are mentioned am I?
It's June 3, and 48F here in Bremerton, WA.
In the most recent issue of Skeptic Magazine, there is a debate on Climate Change. Both sides of the argument continue to insist on Chartmanship (although the Anti AGW side doesn't use it to his advantage).
It is amazing how 'unscary' the data is when you don't suppress the zeros.
Why is it that no one calls them on this chicanery?
Hopefully someone can correct the following definition.
Tempeature is a proxy for the energy content of a substance. Given a uniform body it is directly proportional to the energy in the system. To calculate the specific heat of an object you basically multiply its heat capacity by the temperature. When you do this multiplication to find the heat capacity you do it in units of ....
You can of course calculate the delta specific heat (and in all the calculation I did at school this is usually what we did). If you are, however tracking energy in the system, wouldn't it be wiser to track the magnitude of the heat capacity and not the difference? Using a difference is very useful from a calculation point of view, but it doesn't tell you much about the magnitude of the change.
I know that I must be a simpleton to think in these ways, but...
Another interesting thing about the Freeman Dyson book review link is he gives a definitive value for the average carbon dioxide atmospheric lifetime (or residence time) as about 12 years, based on the wiggles in background CO2 curves.
The IPCC seem to be very, possibly deliberately, confusing about CO2 atmospheric lifetimes, giving the number as a range of 5 to 200 years whereas for every other greenhouse gas they decide to give a single value:
With a range of 5 to 200 years, people tend to intuitively assume an average of about 100 years. It's quite a common assertion by the Green lobby that all the carbon dioxide generated by industry since the Industrial Revolution is still in the atmosphere today.