Accuweather turns against Warming Denialists.
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
Denialists would quote
accuweather's claim that there was no evidnece for Global Warming?
Ahahahahahahahahahah
Large Moulins in Greenland causing an Alarm - 2007
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/
A moulin is the name for a giant hole in a glacier in which millions of
gallons of melt
water can cascade through to the rocky surface underneath the glacier during
the melt
season.
Why am I bringing this up now? Well, on a recent trip to Greenland a group
of scientists
and journalists were alarmed at the size and number of these moulins that
they saw on the
Greenland ice cap. Some of the moulins in Greenland run on the scale of
Niagra Falls and
are helping the glaciers to move at three times the rate that they did
previously.
Scientists say the acceleration of melting and subsequent speeding up of
giant glaciers
could be catastrophic in terms of sea level rise and make previous
predictions published
this year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) far too
low, according to
the article from AlterNet, which is a progressive news website.
Professor Robert Correll, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
said that newly
invented ice penetrating radar showed that the melt water was pouring
through to the bottom
of the glacier creating a melt water lake 500 metres deep causing the
glacier "to float on
land. "These melt water rivers are lubricating the glacier, like applying
oil to a surface
and causing it to slide into the sea. It is causing a massive acceleration
which could be
catastrophic." Correll stated that one particular glacier puts enough fresh
water into the
sea in one day to provide drinking water for a city the size of New York for
a year.
Correll believes that the estimates of a 20 to 60 centimeter sea level rise
this century
from the IPCC report in February had been "conservative" and feels that it
would be at the
upper end of this range at a minimum. Some scientists fear that number could
be 2 metres
(200 centimeters), which would obviously have catastrophic effects for
European and U.S.
Paul E. Lehmann
On Saturday October 13, 2007 1:43:53 pm, Roger
Coppock Wrote:
"Nothing in global warming theory predicts an
apocalypse. That's not even a good strawman
argument."
If the AGWers want something new to worry about,
they can worry about Global Cooling instead - or
also.
Following is an article by Josie Glausiusz which
appears in the October, 2007 issue of "Discover
Magazine"
"A COLD LOOK AT WAR
THE STUDY "Climate Change and War Frequency in
Eastern China Over the Last Millennium," by David
Zhang et al., published in the August 2007 issue
of Human Ecology.
THE MOTIVE In a study of more than 900 years of
conflict in eastern China, a team of researchers
has tested the hypothesis that cold spells fuel
the social instability that leads to war.
THE METHODS Earth scientist David Zhang of the
University of Hong Kong and his colleagues
consulted a multivolume compendium, "The
Tabulation of Wars in Ancient China", which
records wars in China between 800 B.C. and A.D.
1911. They focused on the 899 wars that took
place between the years 1000 and 1911 in densely
populated eastern China.
The researchers then compared the historical
record with climate data for the same period. In
the past decade, paleoclimatologists have
reconstructed a record of climate change over the
millennium by consulting historical documents and
examining indicators of temperature change like
tree rings, as well as oxygen isotopes in ice
cores and coral skeletons. By combining data
from multiple studies, Zhang and his colleagues
identified six major cycles of warm and cold
phases from 1000 to 1911. The team then tabulated
the frequency of wars and grouped them into three
classes: very high (more than 30 wars per
decade), high (15 to 30 wars per decade), and low
(fewer than 15 wars per decade.) All four
decades of "very high" warfare, as well as most
periods of "high" conflict, coincided with cold
phases. The link was most pronounced in the
south, perhaps because of its greater population
density as well as southern migration due to the
cold.
Two especially frigid periods (1448-1487) and
(1583-1717) stand out. During the first period,
many regions of china suffered huge famines, and
authorities of the Ming dynasty quashed
rebellions in numerous provinces. At the
beginning of the second cold era, heavy rains and
sever floods devastated agricultural production,
and during the subsequent famine people were
forced to eat tree bark and even seeds from the
excrement of wild geese. Later, between 1620 and
1640, earth's temperature fell to its lowest
point since the beginning of the millennium. In
china, major floods followed extreme droughts, and
frequent famines led to mass starvation and
death. In 1644, a peasand rebel leader marched
into the capital and captured Beijing, Finally,
a Manchu invasion ended the Ming regime.
THE MEANING During warm periods, Zhang explains,
populations increased, but the conditions brought
on by cold phases--shorter growing seasons, less
land available for cultivation, a shortage of
forage for domestic animals, and lower
agriculture yields--could not sustain them. The
shortages fueled peasant unrest, which
destabilized regimes. Nearly all China's
dynastic changes too place during the cold
spells.
Zhang believes his work has relevance for a
warming world. Global temperatures are expected
to rise faster and faster in the future, and our
expanded population may be unable to adapt to the
ecological changes. "Animals can adapt to
climate change, mainly by relying on migration,
depopulation--which consists of starvation and
cannibalism--and dietary change," he explains.
"Human beings have more adaptive choices and
social mechanisms, such as birth control, trade,
and scientific innovation. Some of these social
mechanisms are good for humanity and some are
bad, such as war. The war is just like the
cannibalism of animals." "
Al Goreon's Great Global Warming Scam
MIT's inconvenient scientist
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist?mode=PF
By Alex Beam, Globe Columnist | August 30, 2006
Speech codes are rare in the industrialized, Western democracies. In Germany
and Austria, for instance, it is forbidden to proselytize Nazi ideology or
trivialize the Holocaust. Given those countries' recent histories, that is a
restraint on free expression we can live with.
More curious are our own taboos on the subject of global warming. I sat in a
roomful of journalists 10 years ago while Stanford climatologist Stephen
Schneider lectured us on a big problem in our profession: soliciting
opposing points of view. In the debate over climate change, Schneider said,
there simply was no legitimate opposing view to the scientific consensus
that man - made carbon emissions drive global warming. To suggest or report
otherwise, he said, was irresponsible.
Indeed. I attended a week's worth of lectures on global warming at the
Chautauqua Institution last month. Al Gore delivered the kickoff lecture,
and, 10 years later, he reiterated Schneider's directive. There is no
science on the other side, Gore inveighed, more than once. Again, the same
message: If you hear tales of doubt, ignore them. They are simply untrue.
I ask you: Are these convincing arguments? And directed at journalists, who
are natural questioners and skeptics, of all people? What happens when you
are told not to eat the apple, not to read that book, not to date that girl?
Your interest is piqued, of course. What am I not supposed to know?
Here's the kind of information the ``scientific consensus" types don't want
you to read. MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen
recently complained about the ``shrill alarmism" of Gore's movie ``An
Inconvenient Truth." Lindzen acknowledges that global warming is real, and
he acknowledges that increased carbon emissions might be causing the
warming -- but they also might not.
``We do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change"
is one of Lindzen's many heresies, along with such zingers as ``the Arctic
was as warm or warmer in 1940," ``the evidence so far suggests that the
Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average," and ``Alpine glaciers
have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for
several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have
stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't
know why."
When Lindzen published similar views in The Wall Street Journal this spring,
environmentalist Laurie David, the wife of comedian Larry David, immediately
branded him a ``shill." She resurrected a shopworn slur first directed
against Lindzen by former Globe writer Ross Gelbspan, who called Lindzen a
``hood ornament" for the fossil fuels industry in a 1995 article in Harper's
Magazine.
I decided to check out Lindzen for myself. He wasn't hard to find on the
16th floor of MIT's I.M. Pei-designed Building 54, and he answered as many
questions as I had time to ask. He's no big fan of Gore's, having suffered
through what he calls a ``Star Chamber" Congressional inquisition by the
then senator . He said he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness
fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money
since.
He's smart. He's an effective debater. No wonder the Steve Schneiders and Al
Gores of the world don't want you to hear from him. It's easier to call
someone a shill and accuse him of corruption than to debate him on the
merits.
While vacationing in Canada, I spotted a newspaper story that I hadn't seen
in the United States. For no apparent reason, the state of California,
Environmental Defense, and the Natural Resources Defense Council have
dragged Lindzen and about 15 other global- warming skeptics into a lawsuit
over auto- emissions standards. California et al . have asked the auto
companies to cough up any and all communications they have had with Lindzen
and his colleagues, whose research has been cited in court documents.
``We know that General Motors has been paying for this fake science exactly
as the tobacco companies did," says ED attorney Jim Marston. If Marston has
a scintilla of evidence that Lindzen has been trafficking in fake science,
he should present it to the MIT provost's office. Otherwise, he should shut
up.
``This is the criminalization of opposition to global warming," says
Lindzen, who adds he has never communicated with the auto companies involved
in the lawsuit. Of course Lindzen isn't a fake scientist, he's an
inconvenient scientist. No wonder you're not supposed to listen to him.
Alex Beam is a Globe columnist. His e-dress is be...@globe.com
qzectb
I'm an atmospheric scientist, and I have met Dick Lindzen, and I know
him very well by reputation. I'll offer that he is the ONLY visible
ATMOSPHERIC (or climate) scientist on the skeptical side who actually
has the credentials and the track record to be taken seriously. And
he think he SHOULD be taken seriously for that reason.
The rest of the folks who are constantly getting quoted - Patrick
Michaels, Fred Singer, and a couple others whose names I forget, do
not, and SHOULD NOT, have credibility with the press, in part because
they don't even have a track record for publishing serious climate
science in the scientific literature. My impression has been that
they cherry pick evidence and distort arguments for the sake of
supporting their rhetorical position, and they present their evidence
in lay journals whose readers aren't sophisticated enough to see the
spin.
> Here's the kind of information the ``scientific consensus" types don't want
> you to read. MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen
> recently complained about the ``shrill alarmism" of Gore's movie ``An
> Inconvenient Truth."
One can legitimately disagree with the rhetorical methods of Gore's
movie. Personally, I thought most of it was okay. It was rhetoric.
It was designed to influence opinion. If you really think there's a
fire in the crowded theater, you make sure you're likely to be heard.
> Lindzen acknowledges that global warming is real, and
> he acknowledges that increased carbon emissions might be causing the
> warming -- but they also might not.
The interesting thing is that the above already represents a
significant softening of his position, relative to his views a couple
decades ago. I give him credit for being willing to change his mind
despite his inherent skepticism.
>
> ``We do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change"
> is one of Lindzen's many heresies,
That is not a heresy. Even I believe the same. But I also believe
that we need not understand the natural internal variability to be
concerned about the consequences of significant external forcing.
> along with such zingers as ``the Arctic
> was as warm or warmer in 1940,"
Not sure what the evidence is for this, though I'm not ruling it out.
> ``the evidence so far suggests that the
> Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average," and ``Alpine glaciers
> have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for
> several centuries before that.
Coincidentally, just two days ago, I had a hallway conversation with
one of my colleagues, who happens to be a highly respected (and now
retired) researcher on glaciers and their relationship to regional
climate. He is extremely familiar with the histories of the most
significant tropical glaciers. He explained to me how glacial
retreats in the early 19th century are now believed to have been tied
to changes in solar radiation (due to cloud cover, for example), based
on evidence that most of the retreat occurred on the most sunlit
sides, whereas retreats since the late 1800s then have been more
generalized and are therefore more likely to be due to generalized
warming. Kilamanjaro, cited by Gore in his movie, does NOT fit that
pattern, and so my colleague was critical of its history being
highlighted the way it was. But otherwise, he believes the evidence
for glacial retreat in the tropics in clear and that the most likely
cause (in most cases) is indeed global warming. He also adds that the
record at higher latitudes is far more complicated and, therefore,
more ambiguous. Don't forget that many factors play into the mass
balance of glaciers, including cloud cover, ice "whiteness" (albedo,
affected by pollutants), snowfall amounts, and yes, temperature. Even
if it gets warmer, and glacier can grow if snowfall increases, which
is one possible outcome of climate change.
> Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have
> stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't
> know why."
Lack of understanding of some aspects of climate doesn't mean we
should discard the understanding we think we DO have. Which is that
if you increase CO2 levels, you MUST change the radiation balance of
the earth and atmosphere in significant ways. Natural variability
means, among other things, that we MIGHT be imposing a rapid change in
climate on top of an already existing warming trend. Natural
variability, which is real, doesn't absolve us of responsibility to
take our foot off the gas pedal when driving 60mph in thick fog.
> When Lindzen published similar views in The Wall Street Journal this spring,
> environmentalist Laurie David, the wife of comedian Larry David, immediately
> branded him a ``shill." She resurrected a shopworn slur first directed
> against Lindzen by former Globe writer Ross Gelbspan, who called Lindzen a
> ``hood ornament" for the fossil fuels industry in a 1995 article in Harper's
> Magazine.
Just as I don't take seriously the anti-global-warming pronouncements
of Fred Singer, who is not a climate scientist by training, I don't
get too worked up about the pronouncements of an environmental
activist (who is also not a climate scientist) who gets upset by what
Lindzen says.
The important point is (a) my fellow climate/atmospheric scientists
and I don't call Lindzen a "shill", but (b) he remains (almost) alone
among climate scientists in discounting the threat of AGW. And, as I
said, even his view on that seems to be softening as the evidence
strengthens.
The problem I have with media reporting is that some (especially in
right-leaning papers and broadcasts) still make it sound like there's
a more or less even divide among qualified climate scientists. There
is not. The latest IPCC report makes this quite clear, and the IPCC
report DOES more or less reflect the views of most people actually
working in the field. It's not a "debate" any more when, out of
1000s of trained climate scientists, Lindzen is the only one who is
still publicly reserving judgment. To report otherwise does the
public a disservice.
>
> I decided to check out Lindzen for myself. He wasn't hard to find on the
> 16th floor of MIT's I.M. Pei-designed Building 54, and he answered as many
> questions as I had time to ask. He's no big fan of Gore's, having suffered
> through what he calls a ``Star Chamber" Congressional inquisition by the
> then senator . He said he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness
> fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money
> since.
>
> He's smart. He's an effective debater. No wonder the Steve Schneiders and Al
> Gores of the world don't want you to hear from him. It's easier to call
> someone a shill and accuse him of corruption than to debate him on the
> merits.
Are you saying that either Schneider or Gore called Lindzen a shill?
> ``We know that General Motors has been paying for this fake science exactly
> as the tobacco companies did," says ED attorney Jim Marston. If Marston has
> a scintilla of evidence that Lindzen has been trafficking in fake science,
> he should present it to the MIT provost's office. Otherwise, he should shut
> up.
I agree completely. But overzealous activism by some of those on the
global warming side shouldn't be used as an excuse to discount the
evidence.
> ``This is the criminalization of opposition to global warming," says
> Lindzen, who adds he has never communicated with the auto companies involved
> in the lawsuit. Of course Lindzen isn't a fake scientist, he's an
> inconvenient scientist. No wonder you're not supposed to listen to him.
>
> Alex Beam is a Globe columnist. His e-dress is b...@globe.com
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
"Al Goreon's Great Global Warming Scam" <Scandal@AlGoreon's Home.com> wrote
> " Lindzen acknowledges that global warming is real, and
> he acknowledges that increased carbon emissions might be causing the
> warming -- but they also might not.
Laughably, this is the best that the denialists can do. Come up with a long
time contrarian who now just isn't sure of his position these days. Maybe
Lindzen should go back to defending the Tobacco Industry.
Ahahahahahahahahahahaahah. Fucking Pathetic, KKKonservative Losers.
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
"qzectb" <qze...@gmail.com> wrote
> It's not a "debate" any more when, out of
> 1000s of trained climate scientists, Lindzen is the only one who is
> still publicly reserving judgment. To report otherwise does the
> public a disservice.
And it hasn't been a debate for many years.
Science needs some contrarians to keep it on track, and Lindzen fits this
role. He's the sciency version of a shrill old witch of an english teacher
who makes it a career to point out the missing dots above i's and missing
crosses on t's. As such, he is usually useless, and when elevated to any
other status, does a disservice to that which he thinks he is defending.
In short, Science needs the occasional bottom feeder too.
john fernbach
Thanks for one of the more interesting & balanced posts on AGW to
appear in this usenet group in the last year or so. You don't sound
at all like a "true believer" type -- as I may on occasion, for
instance. But on the other hand, you're taking the published science
on this stuff seriously, as the die-hard anti-AGW people just
aren't.
It's really interesting to see where you agree with criticism's of
Gore's famous movie, and where you don't.
What do you think of Lindzen's work on climate, on the whole?
And do you have any sense of whether Lindzen's main objection to AGW
alarmism -- his contention that cloud formation will buffer or negate
the overall tendency of GH gases to warm the earth -- is being
confirmed or invalidated by continuing research on clouds?
Or is it still just too early to tell?
> > Alex Beam is a Globe columnist. His e-dress is b...@globe.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Al Goreon's Great Global Warming Scam
Novel science fiction on global warming.
By Patrick J. Michaels
This Sunday, Al Gore will probably win an Academy Award for his
global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth, a riveting work of science
fiction.
The main point of the movie is that, unless we do something very serious,
very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland's 630,000 cubic
miles of ice is going to fall into the ocean, raising sea levels over twenty
feet by the year 2100.
Where's the scientific support for this claim? Certainly not in the recent
Policymaker's Summary from the United Nations' much anticipated compendium
on climate change. Under the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's
medium-range emission scenario for greenhouse gases, a rise in sea level of
between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by 2100. Gore's film exaggerates the
rise by about 2,000 percent.
Even 17 inches is likely to be high, because it assumes that the
concentration of methane, an important greenhouse gas, is growing rapidly.
Atmospheric methane concentration hasn't changed appreciably for seven
years, and Nobel Laureate Sherwood Rowland recently pronounced the IPCC's
methane emissions scenarios as "quite unlikely."
Nonetheless, the top end of the U.N.'s new projection is about 30-percent
lower than it was in its last report in 2001. "The projections include a
contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica for the
rates observed since 1993," according to the IPCC, "but these flow rates
could increase or decrease in the future."
According to satellite data published in Science in November 2005, Greenland
was losing about 25 cubic miles of ice per year. Dividing that by 630,000
yields the annual percentage of ice loss, which, when multiplied by 100,
shows that Greenland was shedding ice at 0.4 percent per century.
"Was" is the operative word. In early February, Science published another
paper showing that the recent acceleration of Greenland's ice loss from its
huge glaciers has suddenly reversed.
Nowhere in the traditionally refereed scientific literature do we find any
support for Gore's hypothesis. Instead, there's an unrefereed editorial by
NASA climate firebrand James E. Hansen, in the journal Climate Change -
edited by Steven Schneider, of Stanford University, who said in 1989 that
scientists had to choose "the right balance between being effective and
honest" about global warming - and a paper in the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences that was only reviewed by one person, chosen by
the author, again Dr. Hansen.
These are the sources for the notion that we have only ten years to "do"
something immediately to prevent an institutionalized tsunami. And given
that Gore only conceived of his movie about two years ago, the real clock
must be down to eight years!
It would be nice if my colleagues would actually level with politicians
about various "solutions" for climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, if
fulfilled by every signatory, would reduce global warming by 0.07 degrees
Celsius per half-century. That's too small to measure, because the earth's
temperature varies by more than that from year to year.
The Bingaman-Domenici bill in the Senate does less than Kyoto - i.e., less
than nothing - for decades, before mandating larger cuts, which themselves
will have only a minor effect out past somewhere around 2075. (Imagine, as a
thought experiment, if the Senate of 1925 were to dictate our energy policy
for today).
Mendacity on global warming is bipartisan. President Bush proposes that we
replace 20 percent of our current gasoline consumption with ethanol over the
next decade. But it's well-known that even if we turned every kernel of
American corn into ethanol, it would displace only 12 percent of our annual
gasoline consumption. The effect on global warming, like Kyoto, would be too
small to measure, though the U.S. would become the first nation in history
to burn up its food supply to please a political mob.
And even if we figured out how to process cellulose into ethanol
efficiently, only one-third of our greenhouse gas emissions come from
transportation. Even the Pollyannish 20-percent displacement of gasoline
would only reduce our total emissions by 7-percent below present levels -
resulting in emissions about 20-percent higher than Kyoto allows.
And there's other legislation out there, mandating, variously, emissions
reductions of 50, 66, and 80 percent by 2050. How do we get there if we can't
even do Kyoto?
When it comes to global warming, apparently the truth is inconvenient. And
it's not just Gore's movie that's fiction. It's the rhetoric of the Congress
and the chief executive, too.
- Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato
Institute and author of Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global
Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.
qzectb
> It's really interesting to see where you agree with criticism's of
> Gore's famous movie, and where you don't.
>
The main thing that can be said about Gore's movie is that it presents
something like "worst-case" scenarios, not necessarily "most probable"
scenarios. This is not to say that the worst-case is irrelevant to an
informed debate. When driving 60mph in fog on a sparsely traveled
road, the most probable scenario is that you'll get away with it. The
worst case is that there's a car stopped in your lane that you won't
see until it's too late. Which scenario governs your actions?
> What do you think of Lindzen's work on climate, on the whole?
>
To be clear, I am an atmospheric scientist (in a different specialty),
but not a CLIMATE scientist, so I don't personally study his work on
climate. But I do get the impression that he is respected by my
climate scientist colleagues as a serious and honest scientist, even
when they disagree (sometimes strongly) with his views.
> And do you have any sense of whether Lindzen's main objection to AGW
> alarmism -- his contention that cloud formation will buffer or negate
> the overall tendency of GH gases to warm the earth -- is being
> confirmed or invalidated by continuing research on clouds?
The operative word is not "will" but "could". One can always
postulate various negative feedbacks that "could" dampen the effects
of GH gases. The problem is that there are also plenty of known
positive feedbacks, and it's a big leap from saying that clouds COULD
be significant negative feedback to saying that they WILL actually
cancel -- everywhere equally -- the positive feedbacks.
To answer your specific question:
1) it is widely acknowledged that the role of clouds remains the
single most important and difficult scientific issue related to
climate change;
2) I'm not aware of any conclusive findings yet regarding the actual
behavior of clouds in a warming climate. The problem is that computer
global climate models can't resolve the fine-scale processes involved
in cloud formation, and observational evidence to date has been
difficult to interpret because there are so many confounding
variables.
>
> Or is it still just too early to tell?
>
Yes (in my reasonably informed opinion)
Whata Fool
>I'm an atmospheric scientist,
Great, the world needs another one. :-)
Do you know of an observation location that is not in
a Urban Heat Island and that has been in the data set from
1880 to present that exhibits warming in a slope that can be
associated with CO2 concentrations?
And do you know of any reason that, if one location
warms, another location must cool ? [That would be required
by the premise that there should be a certain "normal" temperature
for the globe.]
qzectb
> Do you know of an observation location that is not in
> a Urban Heat Island and that has been in the data set from
> 1880 to present that exhibits warming in a slope that can be
> associated with CO2 concentrations?
I think it's misleading to try to directly associated temperature
trends at one station with CO2 concentrations. First of all, the
temperature trend at one location isn't necessarily indicative of the
average over the globe and will probably be subject to regional
variations that swamp the long term signal. Second, we don't expect a
one-to-one correlation, because the earth-atmosphere system has a lot
of built-in thermal inertia. When you put a pot of water on a stove
turned to "high" it doesn't instantly boil. If you were to vary the
intensity of the heating on the stove, the response by the pot of
water will be both damped and delayed.
Having said that, there are numerous stations at remote locations that
are unlikely to be affected by any urban heat island. I'm sure the
folks who analyze station have singled a lot of those out for careful
study, though I don't personal know of such studies (not me specialty,
as I said).
>
> And do you know of any reason that, if one location
> warms, another location must cool ? [That would be required
> by the premise that there should be a certain "normal" temperature
> for the globe.]
I'm not sure I quite understand the question.
Let's put it this way: the average ("normal?") temperature of the
globe over, say, a year, must be such that incoming sunlight and
outgoing longwave radiation are more or less in balance; otherwise
that average temperature would sharply change from one year to the
next. If you create excessive hot spots everywhere but no cool spots,
then the overall amount of OLR will increase (assuming no change in
cloudiness etc.) so as as to drive the earth's average temperature
back to whatever the balance point is. But again, it's that balance
point for the average that is presumably drifting upward with
increased CO2 and other GHs.
qzectb
> qzectb wrote:
> > I'm an atmospheric scientist, and I have met Dick Lindzen, and I know
>
Thank you for your thoughtful and undoubtedly well-informed opinion.
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> Lack of understanding of some aspects of climate doesn't mean we
> should discard the understanding we think we DO have. Which is that
> if you increase CO2 levels, you MUST change the radiation balance of
> the earth and atmosphere in significant ways.
You're a propaganda victim. (And so is Lindzen on this issue.) The
fact is that there is no scientific evidence that CO2 (or any other
"greenhouse" gas) has any effect at all on atmospheric temperatures.
> Natural variability
> means, among other things, that we MIGHT be imposing a rapid change in
> climate on top of an already existing warming trend. Natural
> variability, which is real, doesn't absolve us of responsibility to
> take our foot off the gas pedal when driving 60mph in thick fog.
Except that there is no 'fog'. So there is no reason to slow down.
<snip>
> The important point is (a) my fellow climate/atmospheric scientists
> and I don't call Lindzen a "shill", but (b) he remains (almost) alone
> among climate scientists in discounting the threat of AGW.
Since there are exactly zero climatologists or nonclimatologists that
can explain why they BELIEVE CO2 can cause atmospheric warming it
hardly matters what any of you climate scientists say. From what I've
seen, and from what you just demonstrated, most people that identify
themselves as climate scientists believe in AGW because somebody told
them too, not because they have any greater understanding of the
physical processes that, supposedly, underly this belief.
> And, as I
> said, even his view on that seems to be softening as the evidence
> strengthens.
What evidence? Like I stated above, there is no evidence that CO2 has
any effect at all on atmospheric temperatures. What you call evidence
I call propaganda. (And I know the difference.)
>
> The problem I have with media reporting is that some (especially in
> right-leaning papers and broadcasts) still make it sound like there's
> a more or less even divide among qualified climate scientists. There
> is not. The latest IPCC report makes this quite clear, and the IPCC
> report DOES more or less reflect the views of most people actually
> working in the field. It's not a "debate" any more when, out of
> 1000s of trained climate scientists, Lindzen is the only one who is
> still publicly reserving judgment. To report otherwise does the
> public a disservice.
The IPCC is, quite obviously, a propaganda organization. Their only
goal is to justify their own existence.
<snip>
> But overzealous activism by some of those on the
> global warming side shouldn't be used as an excuse to discount the
> evidence.
What evidence? There is none. All you guys have is propaganda.
Window Licking
>> Do you know of an observation location that is not in
>> a Urban Heat Island and that has been in the data set from
>> 1880 to present that exhibits warming in a slope that can be
>> associated with CO2 concentrations?
>
> I think it's misleading to try to directly associated temperature
> trends at one station with CO2 concentrations. First of all, the
> temperature trend at one location isn't necessarily indicative of the
> average over the globe and will probably be subject to regional
It's misleading to question the temperature when talking about Global
Warming?
Bill Habr
"qzectb" <qze...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192739168.5...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Do you know of an observation location that is not in
> > a Urban Heat Island and that has been in the data set from
> > 1880 to present that exhibits warming in a slope that can be
> > associated with CO2 concentrations?
>
> I think it's misleading to try to directly associated temperature
> trends at one station with CO2 concentrations. First of all, the
> temperature trend at one location isn't necessarily indicative of the
> average over the globe and will probably be subject to regional
> variations that swamp the long term signal. Second, we don't expect a
> one-to-one correlation, because the earth-atmosphere system has a lot
> of built-in thermal inertia. When you put a pot of water on a stove
> turned to "high" it doesn't instantly boil. If you were to vary the
> intensity of the heating on the stove, the response by the pot of
> water will be both damped and delayed.
>
> Having said that, there are numerous stations at remote locations that
> are unlikely to be affected by any urban heat island. I'm sure the
> folks who analyze station have singled a lot of those out for careful
> study, though I don't personal know of such studies (not me specialty,
> as I said).
They know, for example, that quite a bit of the US Historical Climate Network is
susceptible to urban heat island effect and other problems and are building a Climate
Reference network.
Furthermore, it was the conditions at one site of the USHCN that recently started Anthony
Watts on the path to create surfacestations.org.
Whata Fool
>Whatafool wrote:
>> Do you know of an observation location that is not in
>> a Urban Heat Island and that has been in the data set from
>> 1880 to present that exhibits warming in a slope that can be
>> associated with CO2 concentrations?
>
>I think it's misleading to try to directly associated temperature
>trends at one station with CO2 concentrations.
If only considering that one station, sure, but if 20 or 50
are looked at, and none appear to have an up slope, then should
that make a scientist curious?
> First of all, the
>temperature trend at one location isn't necessarily indicative of the
>average over the globe and will probably be subject to regional
>variations that swamp the long term signal. Second, we don't expect a
>one-to-one correlation, because the earth-atmosphere system has a lot
>of built-in thermal inertia.
No, but the slope should be some function of concentration
from the beginning of measurements.
>When you put a pot of water on a stove
>turned to "high" it doesn't instantly boil. If you were to vary the
>intensity of the heating on the stove, the response by the pot of
>water will be both damped and delayed.
The only region that really stands out is the areas affected
by the Gulf Stream. Any other variation within a range does
not affect things too much. Do you really believe that the total
incoming solar not reflected can be estimated or extrapolated
within the 2 or 3 watts per square meter that is supposed to be
a huge problem?
>Having said that, there are numerous stations at remote locations that
>are unlikely to be affected by any urban heat island. I'm sure the
>folks who analyze station have singled a lot of those out for careful
>study, though I don't personal know of such studies (not me specialty,
>as I said).
I don't know how many people have control or are involved
in those studies, but the UHI is something that would appear to be
easy to correlate to the claimed upward slope.
In 1950, domestic air travel was almost non-existent
compared to today, with no jets. And not only cities, but
airports are affected by the UHI.
The problem I have is with the data set showing the
warmer temperatures all reaching a plateau at a certain temperature
at each location, but it is not possible for the cool temperatures
to move down as consistently because the solid phase change
of water is in the way for so many locations, there is a lot of
extra heat that needs to be removed to get the surface below
freezing.
>> And do you know of any reason that, if one location
>> warms, another location must cool ? [That would be required
>> by the premise that there should be a certain "normal" temperature
>> for the globe.]
>
>I'm not sure I quite understand the question.
To have a consistent or stable global "average", the sum
of all stations must be near constant, so if some go up, then some
must go down, else there is "global warming".
And if some go down, others must go up, else there is
global cooling.
>Let's put it this way: the average ("normal?") temperature of the
>globe over, say, a year, must be such that incoming sunlight and
>outgoing longwave radiation are more or less in balance; otherwise
>that average temperature would sharply change from one year to the
>next.
I think there are a number of processes that help the outgoing
increase in response to warmer temperatures, the balance arises
at the relation of the atmospheric or surface temperature to the
vapor pressure of water vapor at different temperatures.
This not only can reduce a general warming, but also
reduce a cooling trend under normal atmospherics.
>If you create excessive hot spots everywhere but no cool spots,
>then the overall amount of OLR will increase (assuming no change in
>cloudiness etc.) so as as to drive the earth's average temperature
>back to whatever the balance point is. But again, it's that balance
>point for the average that is presumably drifting upward with
>increased CO2 and other GHs.
There are givens, like the increase in atmospheric CO2
concentrations, and the long term recorded temperature data
set, but the things being done with those numbers are not so
certain, many things cause faulty assumptions, even the starting
year and number of years of a study can affect the results.
Weather statistics were never meant to be used for anything
other than recording, compiling and archiving.
The most critical issues in confidence for anybody interested
should be the isolation of the data in regions affected by the Gulf
Stream and not use those, and remove the UHI locations, and then
study the scientific expectations of the averaging in locations
where the solid phase change of water prevents downward cooling
filling in of the data set as quickly as the upward warming fills in.
It is shocking that experts might expect the relation of
the latent heat that needs to be removed to lower the temperature
below zero C (32 F) NOT to affect the veracity or confidence of
the assumptions made from any small upward slope of the average
temperature [for a period of time until the lows DO begin to
fill in as much as the highs already have].
A close study of the _results_ of the averaging process
should reveal sooner or later if this is an issue.
kdt...@yahoo.com
>
> I agree completely. But overzealous activism by some of those on the
> global warming side shouldn't be used as an excuse to discount the
> evidence.
>
So where is the damn evidence to support all this overzealism??
The temperature increases since 1958 are only about .5C. If you go
back further, into the thirties, there is no temperature increase. The
thirties were as warm or warmer than present.
So the point is that the temperatures required to cause a diminshment
of the ice, are surely not being reached only in the last couple of
decades.
The temperatures above that which maintain or increase the ice have
been exceeded for 18,000 yrs. Between 1600 and 1850 there was a
considerable cold spell that is well documented historically. In this
period, there is very clear evidence of at least mountain glaciers
extending. So any fluctuation is only a rebound from this cold period
and not unnatural.
There was also a very warm period 900-1100 AD. There are records from
the Vikings. In these records, they report traveling to Canada and
record sailing in areas which have only been known to be ice. It has
been confirmed that they made it to Canada, where artifacts such as
iron nails such as they used have been found in hovels such as they
built for winter. They named Canada 'Vinland'. A name one would not
consider today.
There is no valid evidence of recent unnatural warming. The forced
revision of the statistics of J Hansen at Nasa confirm that the
thirties were warmer than present. Although these statistics are only
US temperatures, one should be reminded that the Mann Hockey stick
graph, which is the foundation of the IPCC and the consensus of
climatoligists of global warming, is taken from only one species of N.
American pine trees.
The entire field of climatology, including their hairbrained idea of
their. 'energy budget', should and will be subjected to scientific and
legal review.
It seems to be the norm in this field to accept falsification of data,
as you allow, in order to promote this agenda, which is only centered
on a complete remodeling of the economies. So you also allow the fraud
of J Hansen, in applying correction to earlier data and not present
data so as to make the statement seem valid which has been repeated
and which you still repeat of recent unnatural warming.
""Which is that if you increase CO2 levels, you MUST change the
radiation balance of the earth and atmosphere in significant ways"""
This is a false statement which you cannot support. To say that it is
the consensus of 'scientists' does not support this statement. Post
for us the scientific laboratory documentation of this property of
CO2. Please not just the spectroscopic data. You must have
documentation of the effect of CO2 on TEMPERATURE. And please not
merely the Tyndell hoax exibit in the mayonaise jars.
"""If you really think there's a fire in the crowded theater, you make
sure you're likely to be heard.""""
But there is no fire in the theater. Post right here the temperature
statistics from the 20's to present and show any DAMN FIRE. Again DO
NOT SAY ONLY THAT MANY ACADEMIC FOOLS IN SCIENTIFIC ROBES BELIEVE
THIS. THIS IS NOT SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT OF YOUR STATEMENT.
You allow the deciet and lies of climatology. Normal for the little
piss ants of academia who have no understanding of real life, and as
can be directly proved, no understanding of the law and what
constitutes a CRIME.
KDeatherage
CO2Phobia is a psychological disease. Seek professional help, buy an
air conditioner and hire a criminal defense attorney.
Bill Habr
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1192748258....@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
No the revision shows that SOME of the years in the 1930s were warmer than SOME of the
last 10 years.
William Asher
news:jeQRi.11740$lD6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net:
<snip>
>
> They know, for example, that quite a bit of the US Historical Climate
> Network is susceptible to urban heat island effect and other problems
> and are building a Climate Reference network.
> Furthermore, it was the conditions at one site of the USHCN that
> recently started Anthony Watts on the path to create
> surfacestations.org.
>
Here's the sort of funky data analysis you can find on Watts site:
"I did a little digging, and as with all climate contrarians, when
you shine a spotlight of common sense on their "data" you find it
scurries under the nearest rock.
His data for Marysville California are interesting so I went a little
deeper into it. In particular, he compares the Marysville temperature
record to Orland California, "only" 50 miles away. Admittedly, it looks
bad for the temperature network until you see what this clown has done
with the data. It ain't pretty.
Ok, here is the complete temperature record from Marysville, a site he
says is completely contaminated by heat island effects:
If you compare the full data from CDIAC from above with what he gives in
his website, he's truncated the Marysville data at 1900, so that you
don't see the decrease in mean temperature from earlier years. Now here's
Orland over the same period:
Notice that they're starting to look similar, that what was really going
on was a cooling observed by both stations in the last half of the 19th
century. Ok, for the last half of the 20th century, when we know warming
was observed globally, Orland looks like this:
where I have now taken the liberty of plotting the temperature adjusted
for the urban heat island effect as discussed on the CDIAC website. Over
the last half of the 20th century, Orland rose by about 2F, or 1C, not
out of line with the mean global temperature increase. The same
information taken from the Marysville location, gives this:
which translates to maybe 1.5 C to 2C of temperature increase over the
same period and while being larger than Orland, is also not out of line
with the global mean rise.
There are two other stations near Orland, which is to the north of
Marysville. They are Willows:
and Chico Univ. Farm:
Both of which show warming trends for the last half of the twentieth
century that are in line with Marysville and Orland. In other words,
there is no real discrepency between Marysville and the surrounding
locations.
On an interesting note, Colfax, California, approx. 50 miles to the east
of Marysville, shows no warming trend:
However, Colfax is in the Sierra foothills and all of these other sites
are on the valley floor."
Now I don't expect you will care much about this, but the bottom line is
he is playing you like a cheap fiddle. You like getting lied to like
that? If you don't learn to do data analysis, you can be led to believe
anything.
--
Bill Asher
qzectb
> You're a propaganda victim. (And so is Lindzen on this issue.) The
> fact is that there is no scientific evidence that CO2 (or any other
> "greenhouse" gas) has any effect at all on atmospheric temperatures.
So you're saying that CO2 doesn't absorb strongly at and near 15
micrometers, plus/minus a couple? You're saying that reams and reams
of spectroscopic data have been faked? You're saying that people like
me, who specialize in atmospheric radiation, don't actually understand
how atmospheric radiation works as well as you do, or that each and
every one of us are liars? You're saying that the entire science of
climate is a great big hoax? And that only you know better? And
other people should believe you, why?
Never mind. I've been around Usenet long enough to know a troll when
I see one.
Whata Fool
>may have been kt that wrote;
>> You're a propaganda victim. (And so is Lindzen on this issue.) The
>> fact is that there is no scientific evidence that CO2 (or any other
>> "greenhouse" gas) has any effect at all on atmospheric temperatures.
>
>So you're saying that CO2 doesn't absorb strongly at and near 15
>micrometers, plus/minus a couple? You're saying that reams and reams
>of spectroscopic data have been faked? You're saying that people like
>me, who specialize in atmospheric radiation, don't actually understand
>how atmospheric radiation works as well as you do, or that each and
>every one of us are liars? You're saying that the entire science of
>climate is a great big hoax?
A person is only a liar if he knows what is true and he
lies intentionally, there is no reason for anyone to claim that.
But can you say anything about GHG radiation in a
quantitative way instead of just the wavelength?
By using cooled sensors, the precise quantity of energy
transfer should be measurable under various conditions, clouds,
high humidity, dry air-black sky, etc.
Maybe it has been done, but I can't find any reference.
The recitation of wavelengths of absorption and emission is
really lacking science, it does not reflect well on the science
of atmospheric physics or climate change where GHG effects
are claimed to be very important.
If you know of a reference that gives measurements
of downward radiation by GHGs, I apologize in advance.
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
"qzectb" <qze...@gmail.com> wrote
> So you're saying that CO2 doesn't absorb strongly at and near 15
> micrometers, plus/minus a couple? You're saying that reams and reams
> of spectroscopic data have been faked? You're saying that people like
> me, who specialize in atmospheric radiation, don't actually understand
> how atmospheric radiation works as well as you do, or that each and
> every one of us are liars? You're saying that the entire science of
> climate is a great big hoax? And that only you know better? And
> other people should believe you, why?
Yup. That's what the Carbon Industry Shill is saying.
qzectb
> A person is only a liar if he knows what is true and he
> lies intentionally, there is no reason for anyone to claim that.
>
> But can you say anything about GHG radiation in a
> quantitative way instead of just the wavelength?
>
> By using cooled sensors, the precise quantity of energy
> transfer should be measurable under various conditions, clouds,
> high humidity, dry air-black sky, etc.
>
Good God. This is what atmospheric scientists have been doing in
various forms for decades. Start by browsing this page here, and see
which instruments you like. They're all operational, and the data can
all be ordered for free by anybody. Even by people who think
atmospheric scientists don't know what CO2 does to radiation.
http://www.arm.gov/instruments/instclass.php?id=radio
In particular, you might find this instrument interesting. Someone I
know very well built it, and many others like it:
http://www.arm.gov/instruments/instrument.php?id=aeri
And you might want to look at the following figures .. they're plots
of actual measurements. I know the author of the book these plots
appear in, and I know where the measurements came from. I know that
they weren't faked as part of some massive conspiracy to deceive the
public. It would be way too much work to fake these and terabytes of
similar data.
http://www.sundogpublishing.com/fig8-2.png
http://www.sundogpublishing.com/fig8-1.pdf
Among other things, they show a very pronounced absorption/emission
band centered on 15 microns. That's CO2, folks. And we know how to
model that spectrum with high accuracy because we know to high
accuracy the absorption and emission properties of CO2. We even know
WHY it emits and absorbs at 15 microns.
> Maybe it has been done, but I can't find any reference.
> The recitation of wavelengths of absorption and emission is
> really lacking science, it does not reflect well on the science
> of atmospheric physics or climate change where GHG effects
> are claimed to be very important.
Good god almighty. Get an introductory textbook or something before
spouting off about what doesn't "reflect well on the science".
Here's three to choose from:
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Atmospheric-Radiation-INTERNATIONAL-GEOPHYSICS/dp/0124514510/
http://www.amazon.com/First-Course-Atmospheric-Radiation-2nd/dp/0972903313/
http://www.amazon.com/Atmospheric-Radiation-Theoretical-R-Goody/dp/0195102916/
>
> If you know of a reference that gives measurements
> of downward radiation by GHGs, I apologize in advance.
There are warehouses full of magnetic tapes, optical disks, hard
disks, and other storage media FILLED with terabytes of measurements
of downward radiation by every constituent in the atmosphere. Like I
said, you can order them yourselves for free if you like and test your
own hypotheses about the absorption and emission properties of CO2.
We (meaning scientists around the world) have been making them with
varying degrees of quality going back many decades. Today's
instruments are extremely refined. See the Atmospheric Radiation
Measurement (ARM) program here: http://www.arm.gov/about/
We know which lines are CO2, which are methane, which are ozone, which
are water vapor, which are CFCs, etc., etc. We not only know what
lines are what, we're able to USE the emission from CO2 to accurately
(and routinely) retrieve the temperature structure of the atmosphere
from space. See for example the HIRS instrument on board operational
weather satellites since
1975:
http://www2.ncdc.noaa.gov/docs/klm/html/c3/sec3-2.htm
This would not be possible if we didn't have a damned good idea of
what CO2 does to radiation.
William Asher
news:s69gh3l651p9icmdp...@4ax.com:
<snip>
> If you know of a reference that gives measurements
> of downward radiation by GHGs, I apologize in advance.
google "nighttime measurement downwelling longwave radiative flux"
See? Was that so difficult?
--
Bill Asher
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
"Bill Habr" <bill...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> No the revision shows that SOME of the years in the 1930s were warmer than
> SOME of the
> last 10 years.
The revision shows that the ranking of global temperatures doesn't change at
all.
Here they are. Before and After.
Rank of the Years
Before NASA After NASA
Correction Correction
Year Temp Year Temp
2005 14.63 2005 14.62 <-
1998 14.57 1998 14.57
2002 14.56 2002 14.56
2003 14.55 2003 14.55
2006 14.54 2006 14.54
2004 14.49 2004 14.49
2001 14.48 2001 14.48
1997 14.40 1997 14.40
1990 14.38 1990 14.38
1995 14.38 1995 14.38
1991 14.35 1991 14.35
2000 14.33 2000 14.33
1999 14.32 1999 14.32
1893 13.68 1913 13.69 <-
1913 13.68 1892 13.68
1918 13.68 1918 13.68
1894 13.67 1894 13.67
1910 13.67 1910 13.67
1904 13.66 1904 13.66
1908 13.66 1908 13.66
1911 13.66 1911 13.66
1912 13.66 1912 13.66
1887 13.65 1887 13.65
1909 13.65 1909 13.65
1890 13.63 1890 13.63
1907 13.61 1907 13.61
1917 13.60 1917 13.61 <-
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
"qzectb" <qze...@gmail.com> wrote
> Good God.
Didn't you know that the response you are seeing is what most
RepubliKKKans believe?
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
"Al Goreon's Great Global Warming Scam" <Scandal@AlGoreon's Home.com> wrote
> Novel science fiction on global warming.
>
> By Patrick J. Michaels
>
> This Sunday, Al Gore will probably win an Academy Award for his
> global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth, a riveting work of
> science fiction.
What? Another one? He's already won two of them, and a Nobel Prize as
well.
Admittedly Gore's most excellent documentary was - as many scientists have
claimed - "A paragon in scientific communication with the public."
Congratulations again to President Al Gore.
kdt...@yahoo.com
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "Bill Habr" <billh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
You are absolutely insane. But I am sure all the global warming kooks
like you since you like to print false data such as this. This is not
the revision. You don't even have 1934 on this list. !934 is the
hottest year on record.
Pure bullshit. From the proxy of bullshit, dildo breath.
kdt...@yahoo.com
> > A person is only a liar if he knows what is true and he
> > lies intentionally, there is no reason for anyone to claim that.
>
> > But can you say anything about GHG radiation in a
> > quantitative way instead of just the wavelength?
>
> > By using cooled sensors, the precise quantity of energy
> > transfer should be measurable under various conditions, clouds,
> > high humidity, dry air-black sky, etc.
>
> Good God. This is what atmospheric scientists have been doing in
> various forms for decades. Start by browsing this page here, and see
> which instruments you like. They're all operational, and the data can
> all be ordered for free by anybody. Even by people who think
> atmospheric scientists don't know what CO2 does to radiation.
>
> http://www.arm.gov/instruments/instclass.php?id=radio
>
> In particular, you might find this instrument interesting. Someone I
> know very well built it, and many others like it:
>
> http://www.arm.gov/instruments/instrument.php?id=aeri
>
> And you might want to look at the following figures .. they're plots
> of actual measurements. I know the author of the book these plots
> appear in, and I know where the measurements came from. I know that
> they weren't faked as part of some massive conspiracy to deceive the
> public. It would be way too much work to fake these and terabytes of
> similar data.
>
>
> Among other things, they show a very pronounced absorption/emission
> band centered on 15 microns. That's CO2, folks. And we know how to
> model that spectrum with high accuracy because we know to high
> accuracy the absorption and emission properties of CO2. We even know
> WHY it emits and absorbs at 15 microns.
>
> > Maybe it has been done, but I can't find any reference.
> > The recitation of wavelengths of absorption and emission is
> > really lacking science, it does not reflect well on the science
> > of atmospheric physics or climate change where GHG effects
> > are claimed to be very important.
>
> Good god almighty. Get an introductory textbook or something before
> spouting off about what doesn't "reflect well on the science".
> Here's three to choose from:
>
>
>
>
> > If you know of a reference that gives measurements
> > of downward radiation by GHGs, I apologize in advance.
>
> There are warehouses full of magnetic tapes, optical disks, hard
> disks, and other storage media FILLED with terabytes of measurements
> of downward radiation by every constituent in the atmosphere. Like I
> said, you can order them yourselves for free if you like and test your
> own hypotheses about the absorption and emission properties of CO2.
>
> We (meaning scientists around the world) have been making them with
> varying degrees of quality going back many decades. Today's
> instruments are extremely refined. See the Atmospheric Radiation
> Measurement (ARM) program here:http://www.arm.gov/about/
>
> We know which lines are CO2, which are methane, which are ozone, which
> are water vapor, which are CFCs, etc., etc. We not only know what
> lines are what, we're able to USE the emission from CO2 to accurately
> (and routinely) retrieve the temperature structure of the atmosphere
> from space. See for example the HIRS instrument on board operational
> weather satellites since
> 1975:http://www2.ncdc.noaa.gov/docs/klm/html/c3/sec3-2.htm
> This would not be possible if we didn't have a damned good idea of
> what CO2 does to radiation.
You are insane. On your referenced graphs, you show the theoretical
radiation curves invalid. All of your hot air bellowing about that you
are a scientist, and yet you are totally invested in invalid science.
You freaking creeps think that your piss poor theory and mathematics
is always going to pass with your dictated rhetoric which has no
value??
You have no measurements of GHG's in atmospheric radiation to the
surface. Of course gases affect the distribution because of their
spectroscopic dark bands. This only lowers the probability of these
frequencies being emitted. This does not affect overall transmission
or temperature, since overall energy transmission is the same only the
distribution is altered.
PROOF OF THIS IS THAT IN ALL OF YOUR REFERENCES, YOU ONLY HAVE A
THEORETICAL CONNECTION TO TEMPERATURE. NO DIRECT SCIENCE WHATSOEVER
FOR THE PRINCIPLE IMPORTANT POINT.
TEMPERATURE
Maybe you should be informed of something called Wiens Law. This is
the frequency of maximum energy of the distribution. This is refered
by the constant .2898cm/T,
or by energy 4.95kT / h. Wiens law is called the displacement law,
because the frequency of highest intensity 'displaces' towards the
ultraviolet as a direct proportion to temperature. Since mean kinetic
energy, kT, also is a direct proportion to temperature, frequency of
highest intensity is a direct proportion to kT, by the value of 4.95.
As a taxpayer that contributes to your pay, YOU'RE FIRED.
KDeatherage
Bob Harrington
news:ig8Si.8775$xa2....@read2.cgocable.net:
Congratulations! Three for three on the delusion-o-matic!
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
"HangEveryRepubliKKKan" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote
>> What? Another one? He's already won two of them, and a Nobel Prize
>> as well.
>>
>> Admittedly Gore's most excellent documentary was - as many
>> scientists have
>> claimed - "A paragon in scientific communication with the public."
>>
>> Congratulations again to President Al Gore.
"Bob Harrington" <zoosqa...@comcast.net> wrote
> Congratulations! Three for three on the delusion-o-matic!
What? President Gore's film didn't win 2 Academy awards and win him a
Nobel Prize?
I can assure you they did.... Shit Stick.
kdt...@yahoo.com
You immature twits will have to grow up someday. Why should anyone
believe you?
You think Algores false statements are justified. You think it is
allright in science to falsify data, if you are just a little
overzealous,,,,or need to please AGW and continue to recieve public
money grants.
Science is not based upon beliefs, asshole. Why should people believe
the false little graphs and be impressed by your reference to
instruments.
Where the hell is the damn simple and direct scientific elementation.
Your basic theory can't even deal with the most basic of physics,
which is Wiens Law. The intensity means relative energy. Wiens Law
says that the frequency at which most energy is transmitted, is
directly proportional to temperature by 4.95kT / h.
You clearly demonstrate that you are not a scientist. You have already
stated that you think Algore is justified in his invalid statements in
his film, he is just a little overzealous is all. He just FALSIFIES
data because the end justifies the means.Go make up some justified
falsification of data to support your invalid and mathematically inept
junk science and fraud.
Then your little paragraph here, you cannot respond to the statement
directly which is valid.
"The fact is that there is no scientific evidence that CO2 (or any
other "greenhouse" gas) has any effect at all on atmospheric
temperatures""
If you were a scientists, you would not go into this generalized and
indirect response to a proper and complete sentence. Instead, you
refer spectroscopic analyses. This requires theoretical application in
order to relate to temperature. Then you go into generalizations. Then
you claim to understand atmospheric radiation, yet if you did, you
could answer the question.
Where is the proof the CO2 or any other gases affect temperature???
Only in the theoretical estimation from indirect evidence of
spectroscopic analyses???
You believe in the basic premise that O2 and N2 are transperent to
infrared radiaiton. Therefore, you believe in your own falsified data,
that trace gases can affect temperature.
Your only scientific basis that you can submit to the valid statement
that there is no scientific proof, is that you rest upon some plateau
of understanding from which you understand what you believe, but you
cannot relate it in any direct scientific means. OR SUBMIT SCIENTIFIC
DATA OF THE PROPERTY OF CO2 TO INORDINATELY ABSORB INFRARED RADIATION
ENERGY AND CAUSE HIGHER TEMPERATURES THAN OTHER GASES.
YOU ARE ONLY THEORETICAL CONJECTURE, AND DEMAND TO BELEIVE IN YOUR
THEORETICAL CONJECTURE WHICH HAS BROUGHT YOUR BULLSHIT FRAUD OF
THEORETICAL SCIENCE TO WHERE IT IS.
Go make up some justified falsification of data to support your
invalid and mathematically inept junk science and fraud.
KDeatherage
Phil.
> Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote innews:s69gh3l651p9icmdp...@4ax.com:
>
> <snip>
>
> > If you know of a reference that gives measurements
> > of downward radiation by GHGs, I apologize in advance.
>
> google "nighttime measurement downwelling longwave radiative flux"
>
> See? Was that so difficult?
>
Or even simpler google "downwelling radiation measurement" , the first
thing that comes up is:http://www.arm.gov/measurements/measurement.php?
id=downlwirrad
"Downwelling longwave irradiance
Measurement Categories: Radiometric
Description: The total diffuse and direct radiant energy, at
wavelengths longer than approximately 4 {mu}m, that is being emitted
downwards.
The above measurement is considered scientifically relevant for the
following instruments. Refer to the datastream (netcdf) file headers
of each instrument for a list of all available measurements, including
those recorded for diagnostic or quality assurance purposes."
Whata Fool
>"Downwelling longwave irradiance
>
>Measurement Categories: Radiometric
>
>Description: The total diffuse and direct radiant energy, at
>wavelengths longer than approximately 4 {mu}m, that is being emitted
>downwards.
>
>The above measurement is considered scientifically relevant for the
>following instruments. Refer to the datastream (netcdf) file headers
>of each instrument for a list of all available measurements, including
>those recorded for diagnostic or quality assurance purposes."
Why restrict the frequency recorded, is the experiment
meant to determine the downward radiation, or just to demonstrate
one particular facet of the total?
There are other issues though, is it really as simple as
high altitude GHGs emitting downward?
Do the various surface materials absorb all of the wavelengths
without instantly re-radiating them?
Would an instrument that measures both the upward and
the downward flux under normal conditions more clearly reveal
what is done in nature?
What I was looking for is a chart of the flux measured
under different conditions of humidity, daylight or dark, cloud
cover, fog and different amounts of visible WV haze.
What kind of model would use data created on one
ship cruise, in one part of the world?
Of the countless climate change papers being written,
how many will have any merit a year from now?
It looks like most of the problem predictions come from
hansom, passed to al Bore and then distributed to the disciples,
before being shown as wild and unreasonable by the rest of
the climate industry. But by then, a lot of young fools have
found their niche in live, saving the Planet in Peril.
kdt...@yahoo.com
You assholes are so bogus. You take measurements of atmospheric
radiation. Yet you can apply no control. You make absolute conclusions
of 2 or 3 W, of GTG effect since industrialization, but you base this
only on theoretical estimations, since you have no measurements before
this time to compare. and you have no means to check this with
variable levels of GTG's.
With the one gas that is variable, water vapor, and which is as you
claim by far the greatest grenhouse gas, you do not submit any data
for various levels of water vapor in the air.
http://www.climate-zone.com/climate/united-states/arizona/yuma/
http://www.climate-zone.com/climate/united-states/texas/austin/
There is no evidence of water vapor returning energy to the surface in
any actual study. Austin here has many days of no clouds. Yet it's
average afternoon high temperatures, and record high temperatures, do
not even approach that of Yuma. Low temperatures are about the same
except Yuma's low temperatures are higher in summer.
These two cities are about the same lattitude and elevation.
Water vapor can vary by day to day, and by local to local. WEHRE ARE
THE REFERENCES OF THE STUDIES DONE OF THE WATER VAPOR TO YOUR SUPPOSED
'DOWNWARN FLUX??
THE FACT IS YOU DO NOT LIKE THE DATA, SO YOU DO NOT PRESENT IT.
THIS IS AS MUCH OF A CRIME OF FRAUD AS DELIBERATE FALSIFICATION OF
DATA, OF WHICH YOU ARE ALSO GUILTY.
I GUESS THE SERIOUSNESS OF YOUR MISSION TO IMPOSE COMPLETE CONTROL
OVER OUR LIVES JUSTIFIES THIS OMISSION AND FALSIFICATION OF DATA.
KDeatherage
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> There is no evidence of water vapor returning energy to the surface in
> any actual study. Austin here has many days of no clouds. Yet it's
> average afternoon high temperatures, and record high temperatures, do
> not even approach that of Yuma. Low temperatures are about the same
> except Yuma's low temperatures are higher in summer.
>
> These two cities are about the same lattitude and elevation.
>
> Water vapor can vary by day to day, and by local to local. WEHRE ARE
> THE REFERENCES OF THE STUDIES DONE OF THE WATER VAPOR TO YOUR SUPPOSED
> 'DOWNWARN FLUX??
>
> THE FACT IS YOU DO NOT LIKE THE DATA, SO YOU DO NOT PRESENT IT.
> THIS IS AS MUCH OF A CRIME OF FRAUD AS DELIBERATE FALSIFICATION OF
> DATA, OF WHICH YOU ARE ALSO GUILTY.
>
> I GUESS THE SERIOUSNESS OF YOUR MISSION TO IMPOSE COMPLETE CONTROL
> OVER OUR LIVES JUSTIFIES THIS OMISSION AND FALSIFICATION OF DATA.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
typing in caps, are you that unhappy that you feel you have to shout
through a keyboard?
kdt...@yahoo.com
>
'> typing in caps, are you that unhappy that you feel you have to
shout
'> through a keyboard
Repitition also. What does that mean, Dr Phil of AGW. What can you
interpret from this writ ??
"""I GUESS THE SERIOUSNESS OF YOUR MISSION TO IMPOSE COMPLETE CONTROL
OVER OUR LIVES JUSTIFIES THIS OMISSION AND FALSIFICATION OF DATA"""
How come you evade this question and prop up your false little air of
scientific wisdom anyway when you cannot answer this question which
implies a very serious crime on the part of AGW yet to be
investigated???
Would you consider that the scientists of AGW are betting their life
on the validity of the consensus they agree to but cannot elementize??
"""WHERE ARE THE REFERENCES OF THE STUDIES DONE OF THE WATER VAPOR TO
YOUR SUPPOSED 'DOWNWARN FLUX??"""
KDeatherage
Rabbit farts never have, and never will affect the melting of the
polar ice. Regardless of what Algore says.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Maybe if you didnt write like a person who needed a mental diagnosis,
you wouldnt percieve my posts as analyzing you. But you are asking me
questions, and making accusations, and if find your antagonistic
writing repititous, as many paragraphs start with the word "you"
lacing your statement your unhappiness. Just ask your question and
drop the bs, if you want to discuss climate change i will, but you are
acting illogically if you think you have the right to dictate what i
must do in order to show that somebody else work is valid. Yeah i
know you dont like it when i point out your screwed up logic, but if
you want to interact with others outside of your myopic insulated
bubble you do need become more civil. Now Bill recently posted a ucar
study on the feedback of water vapor from 2000 or 2002, but it took me
just five minutes to find a more recent study contradicting his
statement, except the study i found was from 2007. So maybe instead
of asking a question and demanding others anwswer it for you, you
should either communicate in a more civil manner, or find it
yourself. (oh yeah whats up with your fettish with rabbits, and
algore) Now i also find it interesting you have made many posts
making accusations pertaining to a movie, then somehow you have made a
leap in logic to determine the movies validity determines the validity
of the science, which you are incorrect, so please try again...
qzectb
> These two cities are about the same lattitude and elevation.
>
The fact that you presume that latitude and elevation (and even
cloudiness) are the only variables that matter utterly demolishes any
remaining credibility you might have had with respect to climate.
kdt...@yahoo.com
> "Downwelling longwave irradiance
>
> Measurement Categories: Radiometric
>
> Description: The total diffuse and direct radiant energy, at
> wavelengths longer than approximately 4 {mu}m, that is being emitted
> downwards.
>
What good does this do a mathematically illiterate AGW Bunnie like
yourself, Sir Phil of Shit??
You don't want to admit it, but climatology has no prerequisite for
mathematics, chemistry, physics or science. Just a willingness to
repeat rhetorical philosophy without question.
Your charlatan upbringing shows,,,that you cannot understand inverse
relationships.
Frequency to wavelength is an inverse relationship. It is not directly
proportional.
Because frequencies are such high numbers, and wavelength is not
directly proportional to energy of the photon or spectral line like
frequency is, the term, 'wavenumber' has come into use.
To convert wavelength to frequency onen divides by the velocity of
light. 2.99E10cm/ wavelength.
Also to convert frequency to wavelength one divides c.
2.99E10cm/ frequency.
Therefore if one just takes the reciprocal of wavelength, one gets a
smaller number that is easier to work with, but which is a direct
proportion to the energy of the spectral line, just like frequency is.
If you divide the wavelength while it is in cemtimeters you refer to
the wave number as such.
HOWEVER, THE DIMENSION OF THE CENTIMETER HAS NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER
TO THIS VALUE OF WAVENUMBER.
So Wiens Law is .2898cm /T
or 4.95kT / h
Frequency of highest intensity at 300K,,
c / (4.95kT / h )
2.99E10 / (4.95 x 1.3807E-23 x 300 / 6.626E-34)
= 9,6um or,,
.2892cm = 2892 microns,, 2898 / 300 = 9,66um (microns)
And the slope of the intensity of energy at lower temperatures
according to Planck, and Rayleigh-Jeans, radiation law being a square
to the frequency.
10 microns is .0010 cm. wavenumber 1/.0010 = 1000
15 microns is .0015cm. wavenumber 1/ .0015 = 666.667
1000 squared = 1,000,000
666.667 squared = 444,444.444
1000000 / 444444.444 = 2.25 times greater.
The spectral line at 10 microns on a graph of the distribution in
which vertical scale is uniform units of energy radiated at this
spectral line will be about 2.25 times higher or greater energy than
the spectral line at 15um at temperatures near or around 300K.
Therefore for the theoretical radiation curve for earth's
temperatures, the 15um band is far out of the main energy band and not
significant to the bulk of energy radiated.
KDeatherage
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
REFERENCES OF THE STUDIES DONE OF THE WATER VAPOR TO YOUR SUPPOSED
'DOWNWARN FLUX??"""
Here you might want to read the following link, discussing long wave
downward flux, in 3 different latitudes.
http://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf09/extended_abs/delamere2_js.pdf
Ninth ARM Science Team Meeting Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas, March
22-26, 1999
Flexible, Longwave Radiative Transfer (FLRT) in Clear and Cloudy
Atmospheres
J. S. Delamere and K. Stamnes
Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska
E. J. Mlawer and S. A. Clough
Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc.
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Introduction
This paper introduces a flexible, longwave radiative transfer tool
(FLRT), which can be used to create a correlated-k, multiple-
scattering model for inhomogeneous atmospheres. The spectral
bandwidths can be chosen by the user within the 10 to 3000 wavenumber
range. FLRT provides a mechanism from which rapid radiative transfer
models (RRTMs) can be generated. Rapid radiative transfer models
permit accelerated calculations of radiances, fluxes and cooling rates
without comprising accuracy. Such models have a variety of atmospheric
radiative transfer applications. One application includes modeling
radiance measurements in spectral channels of satellite or ground-
based sensors...
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> > You're a propaganda victim. (And so is Lindzen on this issue.) The
> > fact is that there is no scientific evidence that CO2 (or any other
> > "greenhouse" gas) has any effect at all on atmospheric temperatures.
>
> So you're saying that CO2 doesn't absorb strongly at and near 15
> micrometers, plus/minus a couple?
I never stated any such thing. Why don't you provide a reference and
an explanation as to why you believe this assertion is significant?
IOW, put up or shut up, jackass.
> You're saying that reams and reams
> of spectroscopic data have been faked?
I never stated any such thing. Why don't you provide a reference and
an explanation as to why you believe this assertion is significant?
IOW, put up or shut up, jackass.
> You're saying that people like
> me, who specialize in atmospheric radiation, don't actually understand
> how atmospheric radiation works as well as you do, or that each and
> every one of us are liars?
Yes. This is accurate. I'm saying you are a phoney. You will never
address the issues in an intellectually honest manner.
> You're saying that the entire science of
> climate is a great big hoax?
I"m a climate scientists so, obviously, I'm not saying this.
> And that only you know better? And
> other people should believe you, why?
I'm saying you are a cultists, not a scientist.
>
> Never mind. I've been around Usenet long enough to know a troll when
> I see one.
Goobye you big phoney.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
man this saturday is getting a little testy, laughing, claud do you
need a break, as it seems your religious cultist extremist
interpretations of the physical universe and humanities existing
validated scientific body of knowledge, seems to be leading you down a
path of unhappiness, and you might want to hug a tree as a remedy...
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
> > A person is only a liar if he knows what is true and he
> > lies intentionally, there is no reason for anyone to claim that.
>
> > But can you say anything about GHG radiation in a
> > quantitative way instead of just the wavelength?
>
> > By using cooled sensors, the precise quantity of energy
> > transfer should be measurable under various conditions, clouds,
> > high humidity, dry air-black sky, etc.
>
> Good God. This is what atmospheric scientists have been doing in
> various forms for decades.
Good. Now answer "whata fool's" question:
But can you say anything about GHG radiation in a
quantitative way instead of just the wavelength?
Start by browsing this page here, and see
> which instruments you like. They're all operational, and the data can
> all be ordered for free by anybody. Even by people who think
> atmospheric scientists don't know what CO2 does to radiation.
>
> http://www.arm.gov/instruments/instclass.php?id=radio
>
> In particular, you might find this instrument interesting. Someone I
> know very well built it, and many others like it:
>
> http://www.arm.gov/instruments/instrument.php?id=aeri
>
> And you might want to look at the following figures .. they're plots
> of actual measurements. I know the author of the book these plots
> appear in, and I know where the measurements came from. I know that
> they weren't faked as part of some massive conspiracy to deceive the
> public. It would be way too much work to fake these and terabytes of
> similar data.
Answer the question you evasive twit: "can you say anything about GHG
radiation in a quantitative way instead of just the wavelength?"
Put up or shut up.
>
> http://www.sundogpublishing.com/fig8-2.pnghttp://www.sundogpublishing.com/fig8-1.pdf
>
> Among other things, they show a very pronounced absorption/emission
> band centered on 15 microns. That's CO2, folks. And we know how to
> model that spectrum with high accuracy because we know to high
> accuracy the absorption and emission properties of CO2. We even know
> WHY it emits and absorbs at 15 microns.
Other than the one on the top of your head do you have a point?
>
> > Maybe it has been done, but I can't find any reference.
> > The recitation of wavelengths of absorption and emission is
> > really lacking science, it does not reflect well on the science
> > of atmospheric physics or climate change where GHG effects
> > are claimed to be very important.
>
> Good god almighty. Get an introductory textbook or something
IOW, you can't answer the question.
William Asher
news:1192816715....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
> Or even simpler google "downwelling radiation measurement" , the first
> thing that comes up
> is:http://www.arm.gov/measurements/measurement.php? id=downlwirrad
>
> "Downwelling longwave irradiance
>
> Measurement Categories: Radiometric
>
> Description: The total diffuse and direct radiant energy, at
> wavelengths longer than approximately 4 {mu}m, that is being emitted
> downwards.
>
> The above measurement is considered scientifically relevant for the
> following instruments. Refer to the datastream (netcdf) file headers
> of each instrument for a list of all available measurements, including
> those recorded for diagnostic or quality assurance purposes."
Yeah, but I threw in "nighttime" because I didn't want to have to explain
that the solar downwelling longwave spectrum is pretty small.
Restricting the search to nighttime data removes anything but the
atmospheric contribution.
The ARM site, as might be expected, has lots of relevant information on
this. Good old DOE.
--
Bill Asher
William Asher
@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
IAWTP
--
Bill Asher
Eric Gisse
[...]
Yep, deathrage is still clutching to what he learned from an intro to
modern physics textbook without any of the requisite understanding.
Traveler
wrote:
>On Oct 20, 9:32 am, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:
>[...]
[crap]
Yep, Gisse is still kissing ass. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
William Asher
@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
> "The fact is that there is no scientific evidence that CO2 (or any
> other "greenhouse" gas) has any effect at all on atmospheric
> temperatures""
>
Doowahdiddyage:
Why are you questioning this at such a basic level? The idea that the
atmosphere affects temperature is old, like 150 years:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/othergas.htm
You're never going to make any headway proving there is no such thing as
anthropogenically-induce climate change by starting out with the premise
there is not such thing as a radiative effect from trace gases in the
atmosphere. You would be better served going back to the discredited
iris hypothesis from Lindzen, like Bilbo Haggins does. That at least had
some plausible physics in it. It's still wrong, but at least it wasn't
as wrong as what you are saying.
--
Bill Asher
Whata Fool
>kdt...@yahoo.com wrote in news:1192846306.471491.29350
>> "The fact is that there is no scientific evidence that CO2 (or any
>> other "greenhouse" gas) has any effect at all on atmospheric
>> temperatures""
>
>Why are you questioning this at such a basic level? The idea that the
>atmosphere affects temperature is old, like 150 years:
>
>http://www.aip.org/history/climate/othergas.htm
>
>You're never going to make any headway proving there is no such thing as
>anthropogenically-induce climate change by starting out with the premise
>there is not such thing as a radiative effect from trace gases in the
>atmosphere.
Which is it, radiative effect or, blocking thermal transfer?
From your link;
[Quote]
"Tyndall immediately went on to study other gases, finding that carbon
dioxide gas (CO2) and water vapor in particular also block heat radiation."
[Unquote]
Which is it, radiative effect or, blocking thermal transfer
by radiation?
Whata Fool
http://www.john-daly.com/barker/index.htm
A study that claims to separate heat input from heat retained.
Whata Fool
Whata Fool
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
#1 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/1bca1b93b06ce0ef
#2 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/9564479037ca39ea
#3 http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/15ea410330425480
You provided 3 links, 2 that argue against global warming, and 1 that
discusses how much water vapor plays a role in transporting energy in
our atmosphere. Im not sure if you have cited the water vapor study,
but the other two are well known places of global warming skeptics
have been posted here many many times. But your previous post in this
thread asked some questions (see below) that should be answered by you
#3 source (data from nimbus 7, maybe you should update you satellite
information), so you have posted more of fools follies, than later
tried to post some real information, but you should probably correlate
the fact you state that global temperatures should not be averaged,
and yet you skip over the fact the mechanisms that transport the
energy across the globe makes that averaging valid...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/9ec3d34044c54be6
David
>
>http://geofizika-journal.gfz.hr/Vol_1617/geofizika_1617_19992000_65-72_rakoczi.pdf
>
>
Perhaps if you speak in complete sentences...
kdt...@yahoo.com
Normal personal attack to avoid specific data.
Screw you asshole. These locations recieve about the same solar
energy. According to your theory of grenhouse gases, there should be
some effect from the much greater water vapor content in Austin. But
actual fact is that the dryer air causes much higher temperature. The
point is that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the
conclusions that you try to draw. No evidence that the instruments
which are located at the surface, are detecting radiation returned to
the surface by greenhouse gases.
The fact that you have no scientific application for all the
references of instruments you refer, proves you not to be a scientist
and involved in criminal embezzlement of public funds.
Where are your detailed studies of various levels of water vapor
content in the air and it's effect on temperature??
The grennhouse effect is supposed to be 33C. At 287K this is 150Wm-2.
Show some damn actual science to support all of this complex bunch of
mental masturbation.
The recent increase of 1/3 of CO2 is not detectable in temperature
statistics.
SO WHERE THE HELL IS THE 150W INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH
COMING FROM. YOU DILDO'S ARE THE MOST PRIMITIVE FORM OF LYING TWITS
WHO NEVER HAVE HAD TO GROW UP AND LEAVE YOUR CHILDISH MENTALITY.
A dishonest and immature twirp like yourself can evade these facts. Go
watch Algores propaganda flick again, and beat on your little drum.
YOu shits want to commence your war upon society. YOu damn well will
get it. Your life of telling little lies and avoiding the facts shall
serve you well when the shit hits the fan.
KDeatherage
kdt...@yahoo.com
Well at least I do understand these basics. I am only trying to teach
these illiterate believeres in AGW the basics. It is very clear that
they cull their ranks of any one with actual understanding of physics
or those with mathematical apptitude who would ask questions and
expect rational mechanics.
KDeatherage
kdt...@yahoo.com
In even trying to understand how your little mind closes itself off
with the term 'climate' and how I am missing this important point, you
should consider the facts of these two cities in regards to
temperature.
Each day, these locations recieve a quantity of solar energy. Each
night, the input of energy to these locations is much less without the
solar radiant energy. Therefore, each night the temperature goes
down.
A rock, exposed to the sun, aborbs energy all day, and increases it's
temperature. Then at night it loses the energy and it's temperature
decreases. The air rapidly loses it's heat energy to the upper
atmosphere. The rate and quantity of the surface losing it's heat
energy, primarily determines the air temperature. Although air
temperatures are caused also by regional air temperatures.
At 2 meters depth, the ground temperature does not change, but is near
to what the average annual temperature is at the surface. The
temperature of the ground after that increases about 1 deg F, for
every 100 ft depth.
Your tormented little dishonest mind, wishes to use the word,
"climate", to avoid having to answer questions about the daily input
of energy to a particular area, and the rate that this energy is lost
back into space in a PARTICULAR AREA.
So what the hell does climate have to do with a damn thing here,
asshole. Climate only kicks in after decades. Why are the record high
temperatures in Yuma, all of them much greater than Austin??
Austin is very dry. Look up it's stats. It has high humidity since it
is near to the gulf. But it is not so close that the ocean cools it's
temperature. Yuma is much closer to the ocean than Austin.
You wish to refer to vague statements of "energy budget", and your
consensus estimation and dictated repittion of "3.5 Wm-2 of increased
radiation returned to the surface and changed 'energy budget', since
industrialization. You claim an absolute readings from your intruments
of the trace gases.
BUT YOU HAVE NO REFERENCES TO WHAT MUST BE RESPONSIBLE FOR 99% OF THE
SUPPOSED GRENHOUSE EFFECT, WATER VAPOR, WHEN THIS GAS CAN BE STUDIED
IN VARIED CONCENTRATIONS. THIS IS CRIMINAL DELIBERATE FRAUD OMITTING
THESE PERTINENT FACTS
Although this sounds nice to a simplistic mentality that doesn't
analyZe the specific situation of daily energy gain, and daily energy
loss in the day-night cycle, and deal with actual energy in infrared
radiation, and even the actual value of energy density in ergs per sq
meter per second, this does not mean that you have reached any
scientific analyses of the impending apocalypse of global warming from
your nonwavering belief in your 3.5W of human heat pollution in TRACE
GASES of the millionths of part by volume.
It is clear why you accept distorting and falsfying data being in this
field as you are. You must, in order to make the entire string of
bullshit seem to hold together. YOu never get readings that suit you,
so you must distort them all.
And those in control, like Dancin Hansen, make sure that no simply
honest scientific reports get published since this would surely throw
a monkey wrench in the overzealism towards the sacrosanct goals of
governmental modification to centralized and dictated economic control
of your holy war according to your scaremongering of the
prognosticated dissaster of global warming according to your very
provable JUNK SCIENCE.
KDeatherage
Whata Fool
No goofy lady, sorry for your concerns, but truth in science
is essential to avoid greater problems.
Nothing can make that averaging valid, it will be abandoned
when the facts are fully presented to the open minded scientists.
Sometimes I post links that I want to read that appear
relevant to the group interests, too bad people mesmerized by
gloom and doom are so close minded.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
post links that I want to read that appear relevant to the group
interests, too bad people mesmerized by gloom and doom are so close
but you start topics and post replys to people that are intentionaly
misleading, so sometimes i just want to point out your contradictions,
rhetoric, hysteria, alarmism, hypocrisy, and lack of consistency...
kdt...@yahoo.com
AGWBunnie Farts have never, and will never affect the melting of the
polar ice. Regardless of what Algore says, and his extreme fanatically
regards and addiction to intellectual AGWBunnie farts.
William Asher
news:th4mh3d54ttn0j9p7...@4ax.com:
>
> http://www.john-daly.com/barker/index.htm
>
>
> A study that claims to separate heat input from heat retained.
Tell Barker to get that peer-reviewed and into the literature and I will
do more than click the link. Barker won't though, because he knows it
would be savaged. Like I said, you guys have to start doing real
science, not wanking on the internet. Barker and his ilk have zero
credibility until their work can be cited as: Baker, 2007, J Atm.
Physics or something.
It isn't hard to do, the paper is written, why hasn't he submitted it for
publication? You gotta wonder about that.
--
Bill Asher
Baldin Lee Pramer
<Scandal@AlGoreon's Home.com> wrote:
> MIT's inconvenient scientisthttp://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconveni...
> Here's the kind of information the ``scientific consensus" types don't want
> you to read. MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen
> recently complained about the ``shrill alarmism" of Gore's movie ``An
> Inconvenient Truth." Lindzen acknowledges that global warming is real, and
> he acknowledges that increased carbon emissions might be causing the
> warming -- but they also might not.
Your subject line is a lie. This is one guy at MIT. He is in the
minority at MIT too.
BLP
William Asher
Foo-Foo:
You've had this explained to you over and over and over and you are still
asking this basic dumb question? If it doesn't make sense to you and you
still think it's wrong (or more correctly don't understand how absorbing
infrared leads to a radiative forcing), why don't you take the time to
get a book and figure it out for yourself? It truly isn't that
complicated. Qzetcb gave you some decent links for background material
on this subject, you could find lots more at a library. It's all well
and good to play the "dumb hick" on the internet as a debating style, but
at some point it just becomes trash talk and people will think you truly
are a fool if you remain ignorant of basic scientific principles that
have been understood for over a century.
--
Bill Asher
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
never, and will never affect the melting of the polar ice. Regardless
of what Algore says, and his extreme fanatically regards and addiction
to intellectual AGWBunnie farts."
You really shouldn't post information that is revealing of how
childish you really are, as it just makes you look worse. Actually
rabbits produce some of the best natural fertilizers, which then can
be used for organic gardening, but if you would prefer to focus on the
flatulence of rabbits that is your choice. Now with respect to your
constant naming of one politician, you have not mentioned anybody who
is in the current administration who supports reductions of green
house gas emissions, as this might lead to more of your un-happiness,
which you can address to them since they are in office, and the one
politician you mention is not. Now taking such actions might relieve
you of your emotional status of hysteria which results in you posting
the words you have above, so take it in baby steps, as you think you
are better than others, and refuse to respect others based on your
hypocritical self elevated status. Now it would be fine if you didn't
interact with others based on your pompous and arrogant attitudes, but
you choose to do so, which exposes you to revelations that you are not
as special as you think you are. Now at this point once you are
confronted with such a contradiction to your thinking, you could go
inward furthering your distance from reality or you can start to cure
your ignorance, but that is your choice, and im not counting on too
much from you based on your posts on usenet, good luck my friend...
William Asher
>
> http://geofizika-journal.gfz.hr/Vol_1617/geofizika_1617_19992000_65-72_
> rakoczi.pdf
Good golly Miss Molly! Leave it to a couple of relatively unknown
Hungarian scientists to discover the heretofore unknown fact that water
vapor has a large greenhouse forcing. Not only that, but a simple model
demonstrates that there is a nearly linear correlation between water
vapor concentration and greenhouse forcing. Katie bar the fucking door!
Somebody call Trenburth and tell him this startling news!
Say, isn't one of the common contrarian arguments that adding more CO2 to
the atmosphere can't make a difference since the absorbance bands are
already saturated? And yet, you cite this paper that says there is a
linear increase in greenhouse effect because of something that is there
in even large quantities than CO2. That kind of suggests maybe the
absorbance bands aren't saturated huh?
You're so darned cute when you try to think.
--
Bill Asher
Whata Fool
>Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote in
>news:th4mh3d54ttn0j9p7...@4ax.com:
>>
>> http://www.john-daly.com/barker/index.htm
>>
>> A study that claims to separate heat input from heat retained.
>
>Tell Barker to get that peer-reviewed and into the literature and I will
>do more than click the link.
I don't care what the author does, and I don't care if
you click it or not. Most stuff that doesn't pass peer review
is turned down because there isn't room in the journal, or
a reviewer doesn't want to be associated with it, good science
or not.
>Barker won't though, because he knows it
>would be savaged.
Why should he care, it is available to the public.
>Like I said, you guys have to start doing real science,
That's not my job. I don't see any "real science" in talking
about downward radiation without talking about flux density or
energy flow. Also, I have stated that any excess energy can
be radiated away faster than the incoming from the sun, while
the sun is closely controlled by gravity pressure and particle
reactions, the outgoing radiation can occur from may places
and in repetitive re-radiations all at the same time, thinking
radiation can only proceed at a consistent pace is infantile.
> Barker and his ilk have zero
>credibility until their work can be cited as: Baker, 2007, J Atm.
>Physics or something.
But you can't say anything about the science discussions
in the paper? Too bad, others will read it and if you can't
argue against it, they might believe it.
>It isn't hard to do, the paper is written, why hasn't he submitted it for
>publication? You gotta wonder about that.
But I don't.
kdt...@yahoo.com
AGWBunnie Farts have never, and will never affect the melting of the
polar ice. Regardless of what Algore says, and his extreme fanatical
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
posting to yourself, why dont you just send youself an e-mail and save
us from your rhetoric...
Whata Fool
So which is it, radiative effect or, blocking thermal transfer
by radiation?
>If it doesn't make sense to you and you
>still think it's wrong (or more correctly don't understand how absorbing
>infrared leads to a radiative forcing), why don't you take the time to
>get a book and figure it out for yourself? It truly isn't that
>complicated. Qzetcb gave you some decent links for background material
>on this subject, you could find lots more at a library. It's all well
>and good to play the "dumb hick" on the internet as a debating style, but
>at some point it just becomes trash talk and people will think you truly
>are a fool if you remain ignorant of basic scientific principles that
>have been understood for over a century.
So talking about rates of energy flow is trash talk, but
wavelength is serendipity?
I am truly amazed that there so many people talking
about AGW and GW that never mention quantities at all,
they use wavelength and feedback terminology without
any mention of energy flow.
To think about the effect of water in the atmosphere,
all a person has to do is imagine a blacksmith heating a
bar of iron and see it stay red hot until it is placed in water,
which cools it hundreds of degrees, almost instantly.
Without rates of energy flow either up or down being
measured under all conditions of surface moisture, humidity,
fog, clouds, and dry sunny days or cold clear nights, what
sense does it make to fool with foolish climate models.
Could I be surprised if every person arguing for AGW
is a computer model programmer?
Back to debugging.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> WA wrote:
> >Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote in
> >news:ghclh317svjdb10dr...@4ax.com:
>
> >> BA wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
you might want to check some of nasa's current data...
si
<kdt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1193000546....@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
kdt...@yahoo.com
> Now even Bush agrees with Gore - are you not feeling a bit isolated?
So what? Is that how truth and science is decided? By feelings of need
to feel accepted? Obviously so, since this seems to be the main
rhetoric used to support the science of AGW.
So why can't all these believers submit the scientific basis for their
glorious scientific beliefs instead of merely refering to the great
amount of agreement they have on the subject? Because they have no
scientific basis.
These facts will eventually be determined in a courtroom, even if it
is only after idiots put laws into place that destroy peoples lives
and an actual review and analyses is demanded of this subject instead
of the belief and promotion of the propaganda.
All the fools on the ship of fools sailing towards their glorious
destiny of foolish selfstrangulation according to their beleif that
they must strangle themselves to death or they will die due to global
warming.
KDeatherage
The AGWBunnies,
Beating on their drum for their holy war against modern society,,
They keep going,,, and going,,,
Rich
>> Do you know of an observation location that is not in
>> a Urban Heat Island and that has been in the data set from
>> 1880 to present that exhibits warming in a slope that can be
>> associated with CO2 concentrations?
>
> I think it's misleading to try to directly associated temperature
> trends at one station with CO2 concentrations. First of all, the
> temperature trend at one location isn't necessarily indicative of the
> average over the globe and will probably be subject to regional
> variations that swamp the long term signal.
The long-term signal?
> Second, we don't expect a
> one-to-one correlation, because the earth-atmosphere system has a lot
> of built-in thermal inertia.
It's also not at equilibrium.
> When you put a pot of water on a stove
> turned to "high" it doesn't instantly boil. If you were to vary the
> intensity of the heating on the stove, the response by the pot of
> water will be both damped and delayed.
The rate of heating will be dependent upon the temperature (and amount)
of flame and the temperature of the water. I can see delayed, but
damped?
> Having said that, there are numerous stations at remote locations that
> are unlikely to be affected by any urban heat island.
I believe the Gilligan's island station is off the air. :-)
> I'm sure the
> folks who analyze station have singled a lot of those out for careful
> study, though I don't personal know of such studies (not me specialty,
> as I said).
You should look into some of the station siting errors that have been
found, from being right next to AC vents to being behind where jet
airplanes are parked.
Give this a look.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/category/weather_stations/
Amazingly, most of the 'green' posters here don't seem at all concerned
about having good data, or even that their dataset is polluted.
And are not most of the weather stations providing temperature data
in the US?
>> And do you know of any reason that, if one location
>> warms, another location must cool ? [That would be required
>> by the premise that there should be a certain "normal" temperature
>> for the globe.]
>
> I'm not sure I quite understand the question.
>
> Let's put it this way: the average ("normal?") temperature of the
> globe over, say, a year, must be such that incoming sunlight and
> outgoing longwave radiation are more or less in balance; otherwise
> that average temperature would sharply change from one year to the
> next.
About this "average" temperature. What does it mean?
From a previous post (it's not 74.8F now)...
Let's say that right now, the pacific ocean's temperature off
the cost of N CA is 45F and the interior temperature is 74.8F
(that's what my outside thermometer reads).
The average temperature is (45+74.8)/2 = 59.9F
To what does 59.9F refer?
Should I use 59.9F for planning my local activities or for my
planned (thought) beach trip?
> If you create excessive hot spots everywhere but no cool spots,
> then the overall amount of OLR will increase (assuming no change in
> cloudiness etc.)
Hot spots?
And we know that WRT the atmosphere, everything else will not be
equal, don't we?
> so as as to drive the earth's average temperature
> back to whatever the balance point is.
It's not in thermal equilibrium, it's heated for half the day,
then it cools for the other half. And it's heated more for
roughly half the year, and less for the other half.
> But again, it's that balance
> point for the average that is presumably drifting upward with
> increased CO2 and other GHs.
That's what we are being told.
But seems to me that the climate's been getting warmer since the
end of the last ice age.
Cheers,
Rich
kdt...@yahoo.com
This is one of the guys (qzectb), that uses the recievers at the
surface to analyze atmospheric radiation. In order to keep their
funding and favoratism with their high priest, Dancin Hansen, in any
of their studies regardless of the instrument, or the study, they
reach the conclusion that is consistent with Dancin Hansens
contribution to the ICPP and the ICpp's conslusion, that 3.5Wm-2 of
outgoing radiation is returned to the surface due to the increased
TRACE gases caused since the beginnning of industrialization.
They give only limited data from their instruments, but brag about how
much public money they are spending, so therefore you should believe
their unsupported statements.
In Dancin Hansen's most recent paper, June 2007,
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Hansen_etal_2.pdf
he talks considerably about what he calls 'long lived trace gases'. He
attributes a considerable value to the forcing of these trace gases
during the climate changes of the ice ages. Yet his consideration does
not include the supposed, 'feedback', effects of the increasing water
vapor with temperature. He barely mentions water vapor at all, and
gives no quantified values for water vapor. Of the supposed 150Wm-2
required for increase of 33C at 287K, almost all of this must be water
vapor.
It seems that Dancin Hansen knows of the data from these forms of
instruments, in which they cannot quantify the grenhouse effect from
these instruments and water vapor, which can be studied in varying
atmospheric concentrations.
So he is apparently covering his ass, by omitting water vapor from
what he produces to be an important document to the science of
climatology, as only the HIGH priest can deliver. In doing this he
leaves his little Bunnies such as 'qzectb' out on the limb, with their
theoretical format, which must include water vapor, or they must
entirely remodel their grenhouse theory to better fit their data.
Along with his vague quantifications for 1ppm reductions of GTG's, and
his irrational, indirect, and implied scaremongering of methane and
his suggestion that worldwide methane be reduced by 1/3. He doesnot
mention that as a longlived grenhouse gas. Methane in actuallity
decomposes to CO2 in 10 yrs.
Only outside analyses of Hansen's statistics revealed his 'error' that
made it seem that recent years were warmer than the 1930's. His
arrogance and willingness to promote his junk science without
supportive evidence, is clearly exemplified in this paper which was
published before he was caught using his fudged statistics.
He now proposes the propaganda slant, that he is justified in
distorting and falsifying his data due to the inherent value of the
holy mission of the AGW'ists and their cult of profit and
superstition, and that all of the little Bunnies should be proud of
him, for his overzealous attempt to support the cause of AGW.
KDeatherage
The AGWBunnies,
si
news:1193010080....@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 21, 4:17 pm, "si" <off...@webinsight.co.uk> wrote:
>> Now even Bush agrees with Gore - are you not feeling a bit isolated?
> So what?
So have you ever felt that you might possibly have got it wrong? Even Bush
has had the courage to do that.
>Is that how truth and science is decided? By feelings of need
> to feel accepted?
No - the evidence and the conclusions of experts in the field (experts not
paid for by the pollution industry)
> Obviously so, since this seems to be the main
> rhetoric used to support the science of AGW.
No - wrong again - the support is in the evidence and the conclusions of
experts in the field
> So why can't all these believers submit the scientific basis for their
> glorious scientific beliefs instead of merely refering to the great
> amount of agreement they have on the subject? Because they have no
> scientific basis.
That's been done - only a few excentrics like your self and Horatio still
believe the world is flat.
> These facts will eventually be determined in a courtroom, even if it
Truth by judicial judgement?
> These facts will eventually be determined in a courtroom, even if it
> is only after idiots put laws into place that destroy peoples lives
The experts agree that hundreds of millions of people's lives are going to
be destroyed if nothing is done.
> and an actual review and analyses is demanded of this subject instead
> of the belief and promotion of the propaganda.
An actual review and analyses has been done - sorry you didn't like the
conclusions. But do you REALLY THINK that you are better qualified to decide
than the experts in the field?
> All the fools on the ship of fools sailing towards their glorious
> destiny of foolish selfstrangulation according to their beleif that
> they must strangle themselves to death or they will die due to global
> warming.
If the experts are wrong and you with no expert knowlege are right.
> KDeatherage
> The AGWBunnies,
> Beating on their drum for their holy war against modern society,,
> They keep going,,, and going,,,
I can tell that the stress of denial is getting to you.
I am sorry that you are having trouble coping but change is coming whether
you like it or not
Bert Hyman
news:Hs6Ti.94657$yN2....@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net:
> No - the evidence and the conclusions of experts in the field
> (experts not paid for by the pollution industry)
So, who pays your experts? Does that make them more or less suspect?
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@iphouse.com
si
news:Xns99D18EA4A20...@127.0.0.1...
> off...@webinsight.co.uk (si) wrote in
> news:Hs6Ti.94657$yN2....@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net:
>
>> No - the evidence and the conclusions of experts in the field
>> (experts not paid for by the pollution industry)
>
> So, who pays your experts?
The experts are usually paid by the state
>Does that make them more or less suspect?
Less - because our government (in the UK) has not played down nor has any
reason to exaggerate the crisis - you'll find its a similar story all over
Europe.
It's a government research scientist's job to warn us.
They've warned us.
You don't believe them.
They are experts.
You are not.
and remember: if your fire alarm goes off - hey! just ignore it, just sit
back and burn.
But seriously. The world over people are accepting that we have a problem -
one day you'll feel strong enough to admit that too - it'll take courage but
you'll feel better afterwards.
William Asher
> To think about the effect of water in the atmosphere,
> all a person has to do is imagine a blacksmith heating a
> bar of iron and see it stay red hot until it is placed in water,
> which cools it hundreds of degrees, almost instantly.
Fooie:
Remember what qzetcb said about the misunderstanding of the basic science
being most glaringly obvious from the skeptics? He's talking about you,
and he knows what he's talking about.
--
Bill Asher
Bert Hyman
<off...@webinsight.co.uk> wrote:
> It's a government research scientist's job to warn us.
That's hillarious!
It's a government research scientist's job to do the bidding of The
State and to implement the Final Solution.
Whata Fool
I don't doubt that he knows his specialty, but he did not
provide even a fraction of what is essential in the study of what
cools the Earth after the sun warms it.
The suggestion, that according to computer models,
there is not a balance between warming by the sun, and
cooling by radiation to space from the surface and atmosphere,
is far too assumptive for me, I don't think the average of either
the warming, or the cooling, for the whole Earth is known within
10 watts per square meter average.
And especially, in view of my contention that there is
a statistical fault in the process of averaging the annual global
temperatures from the local data set.
Rather than criticize, I suggest it all be reconsidered.
The deplorable science in AGW is an insult to the
years of record keeping people.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
your terribly worthless opinions, are meaningfull only to you....
kdt...@yahoo.com
KDeatherage
The AGWBunnies,
William Asher
This coming from a man whose knowledge of basic atmospheric physics is so
lacking he can't even figure out whether, under the range of normal
atmospheric conditions, changes in temperature or specific humidity has a
larger effect on density.
If we google "Dunning-Kruger Effect," will we find your picture next to
the explanation?
--
Bill Asher
kdt...@yahoo.com
Whata Fool
>Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote in
>> I don't doubt that he knows his specialty, but he did not
>> provide even a fraction of what is essential in the study of what
>> cools the Earth after the sun warms it.
>>
>> The suggestion, that according to computer models,
>> there is not a balance between warming by the sun, and
>> cooling by radiation to space from the surface and atmosphere,
>> is far too assumptive for me, I don't think the average of either
>> the warming, or the cooling, for the whole Earth is known within
>> 10 watts per square meter average.
>>
>> And especially, in view of my contention that there is
>> a statistical fault in the process of averaging the annual global
>> temperatures from the local data set.
>>
>> Rather than criticize, I suggest it all be reconsidered.
>>
>> The deplorable science in AGW is an insult to the
>> years of record keeping people.
>
>This coming from a man whose knowledge of basic atmospheric physics is so
>lacking he can't even figure out whether, under the range of normal
>atmospheric conditions, changes in temperature or specific humidity has a
>larger effect on density.
With all your CO2, sarcasm suggests it doesn't matter,
water doesn't stay in the atmosphere long, it precipitates out.
>If we google "Dunning-Kruger Effect," will we find your picture next to
>the explanation?
No, you won't find my picture on anything, not even in
Indiana.
I don't know why my writings bother anybody, except
maybe if I start to mention the number of computer professionals
who were no longer needed when the micro computer revolution
reduced the number of mainframes running, and companies
could afford to hire unskilled help to install canned software
on a $900 machine. Maybe that has more to do with the
hostility against anybody that doesn't think computer models
of average temperature matching the difference between
solar in and longwave out.
Yesterday here was uncomfortably cool, then the
huge river of moisture poured in from the Gulf, and after
2 inches of rain, the temperature rose to 70 F before
midnight.
It will be recorded as an above average temperature
day, even though the minute by minute average temperature
was about 64 F, a couple of degrees below normal.
Today will be recorded about the same because it
started out at 70 F, but the temperature has been falling,
and will continue to fall all through the day, with a minute
by minute average of about 60 F, a couple of degrees
below normal.
There is no direct relationship of temperature to
density or moisture, dry air and sunshine and stagnant
air can raise the temperature way above normal, even
though moisture holds heat better, it resists warming.
The variability of conditions under different situations
of wind direction, location near water or not, and many other
things besides humidity or clouds make computer models
completely inadequate.
Now, the aviation industry is having trouble finding
good skilled help, if any of the climate specialists would be
willing to take the responsibility, that might be a more rewarding
vocation.
The appeals to the public will become less effective,
they will not worry about CO2 emissions as long as they are
not able to tell if the climate is changing or not, especially
in the northern hemisphere for the next 6 months, because
it will be colder than anybody wants.
William Asher
Dear RoidrAge:
Aren't you the same guy that was hyperventilating because you had
completely misinterpreted the Trenburth et al. paper on estimating the
radiative forcing from greenhouse gases? I'm pretty sure it was you. Let
me see .... Oh yeah, here it is:
If you are so completely clueless about something as simple as that, I find
it hard to believe you are saying anything more intelligent now.
Semper furia!
--
Bill Asher
qzectb
> This is one of the guys (qzectb), that uses the recievers at the
> surface to analyze atmospheric radiation. In order to keep their
> funding and favoratism with their high priest, Dancin Hansen, in any
I don't personally use the instruments in question, and I don't get a
dollar of funding in this particular area. I have no personal stake
in the AGW debate apart from concern for my children's future.
You clearly need help with your science, with your grip on reality,
and with your antisocial personality disorder. Good luck to you.
Over and out.
kdt...@yahoo.com
If you actually cared about your grandkids, you would not believe the
climate scaremongerings and give over to this corrupt bunch of idiots,
the dictated control over the economy which they are demanding. You at
least owe it to them, to actually objectively review this issue
instead of believing any postulates or words or terms until they have
been elementary established.
Well then quit posting the phoney graphs with a radiation curve for
300K having peak intensity somewhere around 17um. This is the false
graph that was used in Europe to get the false postulate of AGW
believed and passed into law.
Wien Law, is that peak intensity is a direct proportion to
temperature. Therefore it is related to temperature by the
relationship of .2898cm/T, or 4.95kT / h. For 300K the peak intensity
is 9.66um. A proper radiation curve from experiment and Planck's
Radiation Law, has intensity increasing as a square to frequency. At
low temperatures the peak intensity is not far from this slope. This
means that at earth temperatures, in which peak intensity is near 10um
(microns), the peak intensity and the band around this at which most
of the energy is transmitted, is around 2.25 times greater than the
energy transmitted at 15um.
A theoretical graph shows that the major band in which most of the
energy from the earth is reradiatied is nowhere near the 15um low
emission band of CO2. And even if it were, this low emission band has
no capability to retain energy. It only exists because the molecule
radiaties it's energy better at other frequencies, as indicated by the
lasing properties of CO2 in which it radiates most strongly around
10um.
Tell your chump ass friend who does waste and embezzle money, that his
and his comrades inablity to do science, mathematics and to
incorporate valid theory, along with their fraudulent science designed
to dictate our existence in relation to our use of energy, is going to
get them into a lot of trouble someday. Just kissing Hansen's ass is
not doing science.
The only point is to diminsh how many peoples lives they destroy
before they are brought to reason and justice. Even if this bullshit
is enacted, it will be repealed with the proper accounting for the
crimes that have been commited.
KDeatherage
kdt...@yahoo.com
To divide surface area by four and divide incoming radiation by this
value, is nonsense, if the energy is not instantly transmitted and the
surface area is not exactly the same temperature at alll points. But
mechanically inept idiots like you exist, and thus trenberth has an
his audience of fools and believers.
If you could even do the most basic of physics, you certainly would
not be defending this stupid paper and it's invalid theoretical
curves.
At least this asshole.trenberth, knew better than to put the peak
intensity in the wrong place. But he has a false slope to the
theoretical curve to better fit the premise that certain wavelengths
are 'missing', and to imply an importance for earth radiation at 15um
which does not exists.
Oh by the way, mathematical slug, 1 Wm-2 is enough energy to equate to
the heat capacity of the entire atmosphere and raise it 1C in 120
days. Come on, dillweed, the math is not that hard.
1 joule per second, over surface area of the earth with radius about
6400 kilometers, 4pir^2 your formula for area,
Mass of atmosphere, I think 10^21 grams,
Heat capacity of air, about 29 Joules per mol per degree,
Molar weight of 80% N2 and 20% O2 about 29.
Why can't you chumps ever talk math?
You repeat your little chunk of Wm-2 recital all the time, even
trenberth recognizes that it is 150Wm-2 from 240Wm-2 to 490Wm-2 which
is 57F.
So you idiots think that about 4Wm-2 is 'missing' due to trace gases
because your high priest says so?
This would raise the temperature of the atmosphere !C in 30 days.
Also the actual Boltzman Stefan equation is in ergs and centimeters,.
5.67E-5 ergs,, cm-2, sec-1, degK-4
KDeatherage
The AGWBunnies,
Beating on their drum for their holy war against modern society,
William Asher
Clearly, you are a man ahead of your time. Probably nobody has ever
thought of what you are suggesting ever before. What you need to do, and I
mean this sincerely, is write up your results for publication. Nobody is
going to take you seriously, no matter how many obscenities and slurs you
lace into the fabric of your science, unless you get published in the peer-
reviewed literature. A guy of your obvious mental capacities ought to be
able to set all of climate science straight in a couple of well-reasoned
papers.
Don't be afraid of failure, be afraid of trying.
Semper Furia!
--
Bill Asher
qzectb
> Wien Law, is that peak intensity is a direct proportion to
> temperature.
I know Wien's Law extremely well. I have my students derive it from
Planck's function as an exercise.
> Therefore it is related to temperature by the
> relationship of .2898cm/T, or 4.95kT / h. For 300K the peak intensity
> is 9.66um. A proper radiation curve from experiment and Planck's
> Radiation Law, has intensity increasing as a square to frequency. At
> low temperatures the peak intensity is not far from this slope. This
> means that at earth temperatures, in which peak intensity is near 10um
> (microns), the peak intensity and the band around this at which most
> of the energy is transmitted, is around 2.25 times greater than the
> energy transmitted at 15um.
You apparently believe that the atmosphere is isothermal and that it
should therefore exhibit a smooth Planck function curve, whether
observed from the surface or from space. It is not. Not even
close.
I'm making this point not to change your mind, which is clearly
impossible, but to alert other readers to just one of the many logical
fallacies that permeate your rants.
> radiaties it's energy better at other frequencies, as indicated by the
> lasing properties of CO2 in which it radiates most strongly around
> 10um.
Not relevant.
> Tell your chump ass friend who does waste and embezzle money, that his
> and his comrades inablity to do science, mathematics and to
> incorporate valid theory, along with their fraudulent science designed
Get help. Seriously.
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
"Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com>
> So, who pays your experts? Does that make them more or less suspect?
The AmeriKKKan people pay the climate scientists who work in AmeriKKKa.
I guess that means that these scientists are in business to best serve the
AmeriKKKan people (at worst) or the global population (at best).
How dare Nature have a Liberal Agenda.
How sad for you.
HangEveryRepubliKKKan
"Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote
> It's a government research scientist's job to do the bidding of The
> State and to implement the Final Solution.
Ya that's right, we are all in league with Lucifer. I can veryify that
fact. You are absolutely correct. It is the mission of every scientist to
bring an end to the world through the establishment of a one world
government with Lucifer - our lord - as it's leader.
Hail Satan.
Hail Lucifer, our king.
kdt...@yahoo.com
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "Bert Hyman" <b...@iphouse.com> wrote
Well then you assholes can't complain on that day when you reach your
destiny and face some real environmental warming. See you in hell.
HAHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHAHAHhahahah
Then you won't have to continue with your mealy mouth whining and
pretense of concern with the environment and your role as saviors of
mankind from it's carnal sins of heating and cooling and using
transportation in modern society and economy.
Shouldn't you be running around the neighborhood scaring little
puppies or something, instead of trying to be intellectual on the
usenet?
Your mommie is going to throw you out of the house where you live in
the basement and type your love of Algore into the computer that she
bought you, if you don't obey the rules.
KDeatherage