Re: Water Vapour, Ignorance and Misunderstanding is Everywhere~~ Politics of Climate Science: Selective Research, Ignored Facts.
Last Post
Politics of Climate Science: Selective Research, Ignored Facts.
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, July 27, 2009
Marston Bates said, Research is the process of
going up alleys to see if they are blind. But what
happens if a research alley is avoided or ignored?
Often the answer is in what is ignored, not what
is presented. It’s an unacceptable practice in
science and only indicates the political nature of
the climate change research and debate.
Why is the Most Important
Greenhouse Gas Ignored?
We should change the name of the planet from
Earth to Water. It covers much more of the surface
than land, makes it unique from the other planets,
and without it life as we know it would not exist.
Search for water is a constant theme in space
exploration.
Despite all this what we actually need is more
knowledge about water and its functions on Earth,
especially with regard to weather and climate. All
the emphasis is on temperature, but what happens
to precipitation is far more important for plants
and agriculture. Precipitation is mentioned in
claims of increased droughts with global warming,
but it’s a scare tactic and illogical. Warmer
temperatures mean more moisture in the air with
more precipitation potential, not less. The illogic
eludes notice because of lack of understanding of
the role of water in atmospheric processes.
Ignorance and Misunderstanding is Everywhere.
Generally the public is unaware water vapor is
95% of the greenhouse gases by volume and
CO2 is less than 4%, yet water vapor is virtually
ignored. Here is a web site devoted to greenhouse
gases (GHG) but water vapor, by far the most
abundant and important one is listed under “other.”
Consider a major scientific error in lesson
information for Biology 301 at Oregon State
University. Water vapor is listed under “Other
trace gases” while CO2 has its own section. It says
warming means more evaporation and more water
vapor in the atmosphere. “Whether this will
amplify or dampen warming is unclear, as the
effects of water vapor in the atmosphere depend
on the droplet sizes and their height in the
atmosphere.” This is wrong. Water droplets are
not water vapor, the first is a liquid the second a
gas. Water droplets as clouds influence the
weather usually causing cooling. The role of
clouds are a major failure of the computer climate
models. Why is water vapor ignored? Part of the
answer is excessive, deliberate and political focus
on CO2. Part is because water is taken for granted
and few are aware of the unique physical and
chemical properties that make it different from
most other elements on the planet.
Few know water vapor percentage varies more
in the atmosphere than any other gas. It’s
almost zero percent at the poles and 4 percent
at the equator. Percentage changes significantly
from region to region and in a matter of hours.
But these are vague figures - the reality is we
have very little information about actual
amounts. Global temperature measures are very
limited and inadequate as Anthony Watt’s work
shows. but precipitation and atmospheric
moisture measures are worse. An August 2006
Science article titled “Waiting for the Monsoon”
notes, Africa’s network of 1152 weather watch
stations, which provide real-time data and supply
international climate archives, is just one-eighth
the minimum density recommended by the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO).
Furthermore, the stations that do exist often fail
to report.
Satellites offered hope with a system that
measured sunlight reflected by water vapor
molecules, but measurement error was very high.
They claim that is reduced. After years of
sustained research efforts into the accuracy of
atmospheric water vapor measurements,
researchers from the U.S. Department of Energy’s
ARM Program have succeeded in reducing
measurement uncertainties from greater than 25%
to less than 3%.
This looks promising but it is only a reduction of
uncertainties. Regardless, an accuracy of three
percent is inadequate to support the claims made
about the role of greenhouse gases, especially
CO2. But this won’t resolve the almost complete
lack of any historic record.
A Positive Feedback that is Actually Negative
There’s a problem even if you accept the
assumption an increase in CO2 will cause a
temperature increase. The atmosphere is almost
saturated with respect to CO2’s capacity to delay
heat escape. A good analogy is the objective of
blocking light coming through a window. A
single coat of paint will block almost all the light
and is like the current level of CO2 in the
atmosphere. Second and third coats block very
little more light just as doubling or tripling CO2
will cause very little temperature increase. This
created a dilemma for the theory that a human
increase in CO2 would create significant
warming.
It was supposedly resolved by claiming an
increase in CO2 causes a temperature increase
that causes increased evaporation putting more
water vapor in the atmosphere. Now the most
important greenhouse gas they essentially
ignored received attention. Temperature
increases projected by the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) depend totally
on increased water vapor. It is known as a
positive feedback and is at the center of the
debate of climate sensitivity. Evidence shows
the positive feedback is wrong and climate
sensitivity is overestimated. Negative trends in
[water vapor] as found in the NCEP data would
imply that long-term water vapor feedback is
negative—that it would reduce rather than
amplify the response of the climate system to
external forcing such as that from increasing
atmospheric CO2.
But this is not surprising because as
Lord Monckton notes,
“… the laboratory experiments in which
evaluation of the CO2 forcing is attempted are of
limited value when translated into the real
atmosphere.” And of the claim that,”… the3.7
Wm–2 CO2 forcing at doubling is “determined
by the underlying physics” he says.
“If only it were!”
Reality Provides the Ugly Fact.
All computer models have the positive feedback
mechanism built in so warming predictions are
no surprise. The problem is the real world is not
cooperating. Richard Lindzen demonstrated this
clearly at the Third International Conference on
Climate Change, (June 2009). He presented this
diagram that compared model predictions with
real world data
As Lindzen noted, “What we see, then, is that the
very foundation of the issue of global warming is
wrong.” He then identified the real problem. “In
a normal field, these results would pretty much
wrap things up, but global warming/climate
change has developed so much momentum that it
has a life of its own – quite removed from science.”
Thomas Huxley said, “The great tragedy of
science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by
an ugly fact.” The hypothesis that human CO2 is
causing warming is slain because they essentially
ignored the role of water vapor in the atmosphere,
but when used it was done incorrectly. Of course,
none of this speaks to clouds, the other major
water problem in the atmosphere for the global
warming hypothesis and computer models. Now
the world is in a blind alley with energy and
economic policies based on predictions from
climate models that omit major elements and use
false assumptions.
Copyright © 2009 CFP
“Dr. Tim Ball is a renowned environmental
consultant and former climatology professor at the
University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball employs his
extensive background in climatology and other
fields as an advisor to the International Climate
Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the
Frontier Centre for Public Policy.”
Dr. Ball can be reached at:
Lett...@canadafreepress.com
richp
richp
Calculating the greenhouse effect
Filed under: Climate Science Greenhouse gases— gavin @ 21 January
2006
In another forum (on a planet far, far away), the following quote
recently came up:
….the combined effect of these greenhouse gases is to warm Earth’s
atmosphere by about 33 ºC, from a chilly -18 ºC in their absence to a
pleasant +15 ºC in their presence. 95% (31.35 ºC) of this warming is
produced by water vapour, which is far and away the most important
greenhouse gas. The other trace gases contribute 5% (1.65 ºC) of the
greenhouse warming, amongst which carbon dioxide corresponds to 3.65%
(1.19 ºC). The human-caused contribution corresponds to about 3% of
the total carbon dioxide in the present atmosphere, the great majority
of which is derived from natural sources. Therefore, the probable
effect of human-injected carbon dioxide is a miniscule 0.12% of the
greenhouse warming, that is a temperature rise of 0.036 ºC. Put
another way, 99.88% of the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with
carbon dioxide emissions from human activity8.
We’ve discussed the magnitude of the greenhouse effect before, but it
might be helpful to step through this ‘back-of-the-agenda’ calculation
and see what the numbers really give. (Deltoid has also had a go at
some of these mis-statements).
The quote comes from a lecture by an Australian climate ‘contrarian’
and frequent contributor to the southern hemisphere op-ed pages. Where
did he get this from? One might assume that reference ‘8′ was a
scientific text, but one would assume wrong. It was in fact our old
friend at Fox News, who may in turn have picked up his (junk)science
from here. It is not clear whether this is the original source, but
it’s close enough.
So, starting at the top:
“33 ºC” is the difference between the mean surface air temperature of
the planet and the blackbody radiating temperature (i.e. the
temperature a blackbody would need to radiate at to be in equilibrium
with the incoming solar radiation given an albedo of about 0.3). So
far so good. While that is one way to assess the strength of the basic
greenhouse effect, another one is measure the amount of long wave
radiation from the surface that is absorbed in the atmosphere (by
greenhouse gases (incl. water vapour), clouds, aerosols, etc.). That
is currently about 150 W/m2 and would be zero with no greenhouse
effect at all.
“95% of this warming is caused by water vapour”. This is sourced to a
couple of chaps who may have worked for Accu-Weather, but a) is
misquoted – their ‘90-95%’ is for both water vapour and clouds, and b)
just wrong and c) irrelevant anyway.
Dealing with b) first, if you remove all water vapour and clouds you
still absorb about 34% of the long wave radiation, and conversely, if
you only have water vapour and clouds you absorb 85% (calculations
here). Thus the effect of water vapour and clouds is between 66 and
85% – the range being due to the spectral overlaps with the other
absorbers. These calculations were done with the GISS GCM radiation
code, which matches line-by-line codes to about 10% – but the numbers
are very similar to Ramanathan and Coakley (1978), and so probably
aren’t too far off what you would get with any decent radiation code.
I’ll get to ‘c)’ below….
“The other trace gases contribute 5% … amongst which carbon dioxide
corresponds to 3.65%”. That is just 100 minus 95% of course, but
really it should be 15 to 34% – of which CO2 on its own is between 9
and 26% (op cit). If you were to naively estimate the total
temperature contribution of the CO2 it would be between 3 and 9 ºC –
but see below.
“The human-caused contribution corresponds to about 3% of the total
carbon dioxide in the present atmosphere,”. This one is blatantly
false and is erroneously credited to the US Dept. of Energy in the
original source (their Table 1)! The ‘3%’ number actually comes from
comparing the human emissions with the gross emissions from natural
sources while neglecting to consider the large natural sink. Because
of the rapid cycling between the biosphere, the atmosphere and the
upper ocean, that is an irrelevant comparison – kind of like comparing
the interest on your bank account and your salary and expecting to be
able to say something about your savings without thinking about your
spending. The correct statement is that CO2 is around 30% higher than
it was in the pre-industrial period, and all of that rise is due to
human emissions (fossil fuel use and deforestation principally).
“Therefore, the probable effect of human-injected carbon dioxide is a
miniscule 0.12% of the greenhouse warming”. That’s just 0.03*0.0365 of
course – but even that is calculated wrong (it should be 0.11% by my
calculator). But from our numbers, it would be between 3 and 8%.
“a temperature rise of 0.036 ºC”. More like 1-2.6 ºC actually, but
although this gives numbers that are in the ballpark of the IPCC
estimates (0.6 to 1.7 ºC warming for an increase of 30% in CO2 at
equilibirum) this is not a sensible way to calculate climate
sensitivty.
Why do I claim this is an irrelevant and not very sensible
calculation? Firstly, it assumes linearity – all of the gases
contributing according to their effects today when it is obvious that
overlaps and saturation effects are large and important, and more
importantly, it ignores feedbacks. The calculation above gives the
impression that what you are calculating is the change of temperature
that would result if you remove all the CO2. But since water vapour
concentration is a feedback not a forcing, it can’t be assumed to
remain constant as the planet cools. Water vapour does in fact change
(roughly keeping relative humidity, as opposed to specific humidity,
constant) and this has been shown in the real world as a function of
volcanic cooling (Soden et al, 2002) and for longer term trends (Soden
et al, 2005, discussed here), and is well reproduced in climate
models.
What then is an appropriate calculation? Well, it’s simply the
estimate of climate sensitivity for the present climate – how much
would you expect the planet to warm if you doubled CO2? We’ve
discussed this numerous times before, and in my opinion the best
answer so far comes from looking at the difference between the last
glacial period and the modern era – this gives a number around 3 +/- 1
ºC at doubling.
For the 30% rise in CO2 there has been so far, that would imply that
would represent around 3% of the natural greenhouse effect – a good
order of magnitude bigger than that suggested above. Of course, this
is at equilibrium and not applicable to a transient change. If one
takes into account the human-induced changes in the other GHGs (CH4,
N2O, CFCs), you’d get something like double that. Given that even a 5
or 6 ºC cooling was associated with the huge ice sheets 20,000 years
ago, and that 33 ºC cooling would reduce our planet to a near-snowball-
like state, a potential increase of 5 to 6% of the natural greenhouse
effect is not to be sniffed at… nor dismissed as irrelevent with
highly misleading arithmetic.
One could make the point that my calculations are ‘just another web
page’ no more and no less authoritative than the links above. In some
sense that is correct (though I’d argue my sourcing is a little
better!). But you will never find a peer-reviewed rebuttal of such a
bizarre line of reasoning as we are dealing with here – basically
because such a line of reasoning is highly unlikely to make it past
peer-review itself. There are innumerable ‘proper’ references to
estimates of the climate sensitivity though, and one should indeed
hesitate to accept calculations like this example over the mass of
peer reviewed studies.
Bret Cahill
AGW deniers need to _demonstrate_ the health benefits of natural
organic CO2.
You can do this on a YouTube video:
1. Get some leak proof plastic bags and place them over your head.
2. Use plenty of duct tape to eliminate all leaks.
Email me a link so I can enjoy it too.
Bret Cahill
Last Post
•• Proof that pissy pants could not absorb the real
facts about climate science.
Claudius Denk
> Generally the public is unaware water vapor is
> 95% of the greenhouse gases by volume and
> CO2 is less than 4%,
Actually this too is an overestimate. To some degree *all* gasses
have a greenhouse effect.
And, to further complicate the matter, there really is no way to
accurately measure or estimate whether or not and to what degree a gas
has a greenhouse signature because there is hardly even a clear
understanding of what exactly a greenhouse gas actually is.
Ultimately it's an ethereal notion. In order to establish a basis for
the greenhouse signature you would need experimental evidence. And
you can't do experiments on something that is ethereal.
More to the point, the "greenhouse effect" is a modern day version of
weighing moonbeams.
Last Post
> On Aug 4, 3:05 pm, Last Post <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote:
>
> > Water Vapour, Ignorance and Misunderstanding is Everywhere
> > Generally the public is unaware water vapor is
> > 95% of the greenhouse gases by volume and
> > CO2 is less than 4%,
>
> Actually this too is an overestimate. To some degree *all* gasses
> have a greenhouse effect.
•• But only one, water vapour, has any significant effect
>
> And, to further complicate the matter, there really is no way to
> accurately measure or estimate whether or not and to what degree a gas
> has a greenhouse signature because there is hardly even a clear
> understanding of what exactly a greenhouse gas actually is.
> Ultimately it's an ethereal notion. In order to establish a basis for
> the greenhouse signature you would need experimental evidence. And
> you can't do experiments on something that is ethereal.
>
> More to the point, the "greenhouse effect" is a modern day version of
> weighing moonbeams.
•• CD~ a very interesting description ~~ to the point!!
Last Post
Last Post
> So how's the "CO2 Is Good for You" campaign coming?
>
> AGW deniers need to _demonstrate_ the health benefits of natural
> organic CO2.
>
> You can do this on a YouTube video:
>
> 1. Get some leak proof plastic bags and place them over your head.
>
> 2. Use plenty of duct tape to eliminate all leaks.
•• You first!!
Bret Cahill
>
> > AGW deniers need to _demonstrate_ the health benefits of natural
> > organic CO2.
>
> > You can do this on a YouTube video:
>
> > 1. Get some leak proof plastic bags and place them over your head.
>
> > 2. Use plenty of duct tape to eliminate all leaks.
>
> •• You first!!
I don't believe more CO2 is always a good thing.
Bret Cahill
richp
STFU you can't even follow a link
Last Post
•• ROTFLMAO
Bret Cahill
So how's your "CO2 is good for you" experiment coming along?
Remember to use plenty of duct tape.
Bret Cahill
Rob Dekker
(lies) in this article ?
I spotted at least 15 by now, and I barely reached the fifth paragraph....
Rob
"Last Post" <last...@primus.ca> wrote in message
news:b675efa5-25ee-4022...@r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Last Post
> Anyone care to point out the inaccuracies, assumptions and outright faults
> (lies) in this article ?
> I spotted at least 15 by now, and I barely reached the fifth paragraph....
>
All the "inaccuracies, assumptions and outright faults
(lies) in this article" are his, which he was afraid to
detail. It is so nice to claim faults without detailing
them~~ that way he is not responsible for the bullshit
he spews. Put up, or shut up, sucker.
>
> "Last Post" <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote in message
Bill Ward
> Anyone care to point out the inaccuracies, assumptions and outright
> faults (lies) in this article ?
> I spotted at least 15 by now, and I barely reached the fifth
> paragraph....
Why don't you mark them so we can discuss them?
Last Post
> On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 23:14:43 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
> > Anyone care to point out the inaccuracies, assumptions and outright
> > faults (lies) in this article ?
> > I spotted at least 15 by now, and I barely reached the fifth
> > paragraph....
>
> Why don't you mark them so we can discuss them?
•• Quit dreaming :-)
> > "Last Post" <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote in message
Rob Dekker
"Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
news:ysGdnVR4oIbgk-bX...@giganews.com...
> On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 23:14:43 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
>
>> Anyone care to point out the inaccuracies, assumptions and outright
>> faults (lies) in this article ?
>> I spotted at least 15 by now, and I barely reached the fifth
>> paragraph....
>
> Why don't you mark them so we can discuss them?
>
Bill, unlike to thread we peacefully interacted, here we are surrounded by
some nasty trolls.
Also, please understand that I am just a scientist with a mind that is
sometimes faulty.
In that context, you ask me to comment on this article, and I will do my
best.
Please respond in a similar fashion.
Let me start with a few misrepresentations and outright faults in this
article.
>> Rob
>>
>> "Last Post" <last...@primus.ca> wrote in message
>> news:b675efa5-25ee-4022...@r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> Water Vapour, Ignorance and Misunderstanding is Everywhere Politics of
>> Climate Science: Selective Research, Ignored Facts.
>>
>> By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, July 27, 2009
>>
>> Marston Bates said, Research is the process of going up alleys to see if
>> they are blind. But what happens if a research alley is avoided or
>> ignored? Often the answer is in what is ignored, not what is presented.
>> It�s an unacceptable practice in science and only indicates the
>> political nature of the climate change research and debate.
>>
>> Why is the Most Important
>> Greenhouse Gas Ignored?
>>
Here is the first big mistake.
Water Vapor is not ignored in climate change research.
For example, the IPCC spends large sections of their reports on the effects
of water vapor and cloud influences.
It is so important that an entire 210 page summary paper was written on it :
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_technical_papers_climate_change_and_water.htm
So the statement that waper is ignored is really made-up, or inaccurate at
best.
Subsequent sections explain why water is important in climate science, a
fact that no scientist denies.
>> We should change the name of the planet from Earth to Water. It covers
>> much more of the surface than land, makes it unique from the other
>> planets, and without it life as we know it would not exist. Search for
>> water is a constant theme in space exploration.
>>
>> Despite all this what we actually need is more knowledge about water and
>> its functions on Earth, especially with regard to weather and climate.
>> All the emphasis is on temperature, but what happens to precipitation is
>> far more important for plants and agriculture. Precipitation is
>> mentioned in claims of increased droughts with global warming, but it�s
>> a scare tactic and illogical. Warmer temperatures mean more moisture in
>> the air with more precipitation potential, not less. The illogic eludes
>> notice because of lack of understanding of the role of water in
>> atmospheric processes. Ignorance and Misunderstanding is Everywhere.
>>
All this was based on the presumption that waper (and water vapor) is
ignored in climate science.
It is not, so this is a continuation of inaccurate representation of the
truth.
>> Generally the public is unaware water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse
>> gases by volume and CO2 is less than 4%, yet water vapor is virtually
>> ignored. Here is a web site devoted to greenhouse gases (GHG) but water
>> vapor, by far the most abundant and important one is listed under
>> �other.�
The web site is not mentioned in the post.
In general, WV as a GHG is uncontested. Water vapor is reponsible for the
majority of GHG effect on the planet.
This article makes us believe that there is any doubt about that. And that
is again a misrepresentation of the truth.
>>
>> Consider a major scientific error in lesson information for Biology 301
>> at Oregon State University. Water vapor is listed under �Other trace
>> gases� while CO2 has its own section.
The link to this statement is also missing.
So we do not know in which context the statement was made, nor do we know if
it was made at all.
Another misrepresentation.
>> It says warming means more
>> evaporation and more water vapor in the atmosphere. �Whether this will
>> amplify or dampen warming is unclear, as the effects of water vapor in
>> the atmosphere depend on the droplet sizes and their height in the
>> atmosphere.� This is wrong. Water droplets are not water vapor, the
>> first is a liquid the second a gas. Water droplets as clouds influence
>> the weather usually causing cooling. The role of clouds are a major
>> failure of the computer climate models.
The accurate statement is that clouds are still very complex to accurately
model.
Here is only one example of a quick summary :
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/delgenio_03/
Excerpt for clouds from GISS researchers :
"What does this mean for climate change? Mao-Sung Yao, Tselioudis, Del
Genio, and William Kovari used the GISS global climate model to predict
changes in different types of clouds, and the sensitivity of the climate, to
a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration. They found that low-level clouds
in the model behaved much the same as anticipated from satellite and surface
data. At midlatitudes, clouds became a bit thinner and less reflective in
the simulated warmer climate. They became less reflective in the tropics as
well, but for a different reason: clouds in the warmer climate lost more of
their water due to greater rainfall. But other types of clouds did not
behave in the same way. For example, the big "anvil" clouds that accompany
thunderstorms at high altitudes became more extensive and brighter in the
warmer climate, instead."
>> Why is water vapor ignored?
It's not. Again the same fault.
>> Part of the answer is excessive, deliberate and political focus on CO2.
That is a lie, for sure, since the original statement was not even correct.
>> Part is because water is taken for granted and few are aware of the
>> unique
>> physical and chemical properties that make it different from most other
>> elements on the planet.
>>
Empty statement.
>> Few know water vapor percentage varies more in the atmosphere than any
>> other gas. It�s almost zero percent at the poles and 4 percent at the
>> equator. Percentage changes significantly from region to region and in a
>> matter of hours. But these are vague figures - the reality is we have
>> very little information about actual amounts. Global temperature
>> measures are very limited and inadequate as Anthony Watt�s work shows.
>> but precipitation and atmospheric moisture measures are worse. An
>> August 2006 Science article titled �Waiting for the Monsoon� notes,
>> Africa�s network of 1152 weather watch stations, which provide real-time
>> data and supply international climate archives, is just one-eighth the
>> minimum density recommended by the World Meteorological Organization
>> (WMO).
>> Furthermore, the stations that do exist often fail to report.
More accurate data is good, but I would be very surprised if any
peer-reviewed scientific article on climate science has based any of their
conclusions on data from the Africa network of weather stations, unless it
was treated with the appropriate margins of error. We know the limitations
of current and past observations, and learn to deal with it and not draw
conclusions from it. Standard practice in science.
So I suspect this statement and paragraph are entirely fabricated to sustain
the original faulty assertion (or water being ignored).
>>
>> Satellites offered hope with a system that measured sunlight reflected
>> by water vapor molecules, but measurement error was very high. They
>> claim that is reduced. After years of sustained research efforts into
>> the accuracy of atmospheric water vapor measurements, researchers from
>> the U.S. Department of Energy�s ARM Program have succeeded in reducing
>> measurement uncertainties from greater than 25%
>> to less than 3%.
>>
That is the first correct and on-subject statement that is made in this
article.
>> This looks promising but it is only a reduction of uncertainties.
>> Regardless, an accuracy of three percent is inadequate to support the
>> claims made about the role of greenhouse gases, especially CO2.
That is an opinion.
>> But this
>> won�t resolve the almost complete lack of any historic record.
Correct, and historic records are treated with increased margins of error.
>>
>> A Positive Feedback that is Actually Negative
>>
>> There�s a problem even if you accept the assumption an increase in CO2
>> will cause a temperature increase. The atmosphere is almost saturated
>> with respect to CO2�s capacity to delay heat escape. A good analogy is
>> the objective of blocking light coming through a window. A single coat
>> of paint will block almost all the light and is like the current level
>> of CO2 in the atmosphere. Second and third coats block very little more
>> light just as doubling or tripling CO2 will cause very little
>> temperature increase. This created a dilemma for the theory that a
>> human increase in CO2 would create significant warming.
>>
This is a complete lie. The author should know better.
The comparison with the window opagueness is completely wrong.
What matters is that altitude (and more importantly the temperature of the
atmosphere) where CO2 becomes IR-optically transparant to space. That is
currently at about 220 K (around 12 km) and will drop to lower radiating
temperature as the radiating altitude increases with increased CO2 content.
That causes reduced space-bound radiation, which causes a deficit in
space-bound energy transfer, which causes global warming.
It should be quite embarrasing for the author (apparently a professor in
climate science) to be corrected by a software engineer on this subject.
>> It was supposedly resolved by claiming an increase in CO2 causes a
>> temperature increase that causes increased evaporation putting more
>> water vapor in the atmosphere. Now the most important greenhouse gas
>> they essentially ignored received attention. Temperature increases
>> projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) depend
>> totally on increased water vapor.
Not true at all.
The initial temperature increase is caused by CO2. Water vapor content
creates a feedback mechanism, which is assessed to increase the temperature
increase be a factor of 2-3. Then there is also CH4 and ozone and a number
of other factors (like deforestation and land-use change) that contribute to
the overall IPCC's assessment of climate change.
>> It is known as a positive feedback and
>> is at the center of the debate of climate sensitivity. Evidence shows
>> the positive feedback is wrong and climate sensitivity is overestimated.
Easy to say without showing that evidence.
>> Negative trends in [water vapor] as found in the NCEP data would imply
>> that long-term water vapor feedback is negative�that it would reduce
>> rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external
>> forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2.
Easy to say without showing that evidence.
>>
>> But this is not surprising because as Lord Monckton notes,
>>
>> �� the laboratory experiments in which evaluation of the CO2 forcing is
>> attempted are of limited value when translated into the real
>> atmosphere.� And of the claim that,�� the3.7 Wm�2 CO2 forcing at
>> doubling is �determined by the underlying physics� he says.
>> �If only it were!�
Easy to say without showing different facts.
>>
>> Reality Provides the Ugly Fact.
>>
>> All computer models have the positive feedback mechanism built in so
>> warming predictions are no surprise.
That is not true.
Feedback mechanisms are treated separately in all serious models.
>> The problem is the real world is
>> not cooperating.
Easy to say without showing evidence.
>> Richard Lindzen demonstrated this clearly at the Third
>> International Conference on Climate Change, (June 2009). He presented
>> this diagram that compared model predictions with real world data
>>
The Third International Conference of Climate Change is organized by the
Heartland Institute.
None of their work has been accepted anywhere, probably because they are not
a science institute.
They are a political lobyist group sponsored by the industries they work
for.
Two decades ago, that was the tabacco industry, and the Heartland institude
worked really hard to downplay the harmfull effects of smoking. They even
still have some of their work on their web site :
http://www.heartland.org/suites/tobacco/index-old.html
Now, they work for the fossil fuel industry, and they work hard to downplay
the harmfull effects of CO2.
Not just that, but they also fund smear camplains against climate scientists
(like Hanson).
They even set up a list of supposedly 'global warming sceptics', with names
on that list of scientists that do not even agree being on the list. Read
some of their actions and decisions in this rather mild overview of this
media outlet center :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
This article is a fabrication of non-scientific statements, run by a media
center that is only interested in creating the PERCEPTION of controversy in
climate science.
I'll stop now. Think I made my point.
Bill Ward
The link talks about the effect of "climate change" on water resources,
not water on climate.
" The scope of this Technical Paper, as outlined in IPCC-
XXI – Doc. 9, is to evaluate the impacts of climate change
on hydrological processes and regimes, and on freshwater
resources – their availability, quality, uses and management.
The Technical Paper takes into account current and projected
regional key vulnerabilities and prospects for adaptation."
>
> Subsequent sections explain why water is important in climate science, a
> fact that no scientist denies.
Can you show us the link that says that?
>>> We should change the name of the planet from Earth to Water. It covers
>>> much more of the surface than land, makes it unique from the other
>>> planets, and without it life as we know it would not exist. Search for
>>> water is a constant theme in space exploration.
>>>
>>> Despite all this what we actually need is more knowledge about water
>>> and its functions on Earth, especially with regard to weather and
>>> climate. All the emphasis is on temperature, but what happens to
>>> precipitation is far more important for plants and agriculture.
>>> Precipitation is mentioned in claims of increased droughts with global
>>> warming, but it’s a scare tactic and illogical. Warmer temperatures
>>> mean more moisture in the air with more precipitation potential, not
>>> less. The illogic eludes notice because of lack of understanding of
>>> the role of water in atmospheric processes. Ignorance and
>>> Misunderstanding is Everywhere.
>>>
>>>
> All this was based on the presumption that waper (and water vapor) is
> ignored in climate science.
> It is not, so this is a continuation of inaccurate representation of the
> truth.
The effect of water on the climate system seems underrepresented at best,
compared to the emphasis on CO2.
>>> Generally the public is unaware water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse
>>> gases by volume and CO2 is less than 4%, yet water vapor is virtually
>>> ignored. Here is a web site devoted to greenhouse gases (GHG) but
>>> water vapor, by far the most abundant and important one is listed
>>> under “other.”
>
> The web site is not mentioned in the post. In general, WV as a GHG is
> uncontested. Water vapor is reponsible for the majority of GHG effect on
> the planet. This article makes us believe that there is any doubt about
> that. And that is again a misrepresentation of the truth.
The link should be posted.
>
>
>>> Consider a major scientific error in lesson information for Biology
>>> 301 at Oregon State University. Water vapor is listed under “Other
>>> trace gases” while CO2 has its own section.
>
> The link to this statement is also missing. So we do not know in which
> context the statement was made, nor do we know if it was made at all.
The link should be posted.
You don't think the political focus is on CO2?
>>> Part is because water is taken for granted and few are aware of the
>>> unique
>>> physical and chemical properties that make it different from most
>>> other elements on the planet.
>>>
>>>
> Empty statement.
But not an error.
>>> Few know water vapor percentage varies more in the atmosphere than any
>>> other gas. It’s almost zero percent at the poles and 4 percent at the
>>> equator. Percentage changes significantly from region to region and in
>>> a matter of hours. But these are vague figures - the reality is we
>>> have very little information about actual amounts. Global temperature
>>> measures are very limited and inadequate as Anthony Watt’s work shows.
>>> but precipitation and atmospheric moisture measures are worse. An
>>> August 2006 Science article titled “Waiting for the Monsoon” notes,
>>> Africa’s network of 1152 weather watch stations, which provide
>>> real-time data and supply international climate archives, is just
>>> one-eighth the minimum density recommended by the World Meteorological
>>> Organization (WMO).
>>> Furthermore, the stations that do exist often fail to report.
>
> More accurate data is good, but I would be very surprised if any
> peer-reviewed scientific article on climate science has based any of
> their conclusions on data from the Africa network of weather stations,
> unless it was treated with the appropriate margins of error. We know the
> limitations of current and past observations, and learn to deal with it
> and not draw conclusions from it. Standard practice in science.
But not "climate science". Do you really think valid conclusions could
be reached on "global" climate while leaving out an entire continent? I
don't either, but that's what's claimed.
> So I suspect this statement and paragraph are entirely fabricated to
> sustain the original faulty assertion (or water being ignored).
Suspicions are not valid until confirmed.
>>> Satellites offered hope with a system that measured sunlight reflected
>>> by water vapor molecules, but measurement error was very high. They
>>> claim that is reduced. After years of sustained research efforts into
>>> the accuracy of atmospheric water vapor measurements, researchers from
>>> the U.S. Department of Energy’s ARM Program have succeeded in reducing
>>> measurement uncertainties from greater than 25%
>>> to less than 3%.
>>>
>>>
> That is the first correct and on-subject statement that is made in this
> article.
>
>>> This looks promising but it is only a reduction of uncertainties.
>>> Regardless, an accuracy of three percent is inadequate to support the
>>> claims made about the role of greenhouse gases, especially CO2.
>
> That is an opinion.
But not necessarily an error.
>>> But this
>>> won’t resolve the almost complete lack of any historic record.
>
> Correct, and historic records are treated with increased margins of
> error.
Some are continuously "corrected". See climateaudit on the historic
temperature data from GISS.
>
>>> A Positive Feedback that is Actually Negative
>>>
>>> There’s a problem even if you accept the assumption an increase in CO2
>>> will cause a temperature increase. The atmosphere is almost saturated
>>> with respect to CO2’s capacity to delay heat escape. A good analogy is
>>> the objective of blocking light coming through a window. A single coat
>>> of paint will block almost all the light and is like the current level
>>> of CO2 in the atmosphere. Second and third coats block very little
>>> more light just as doubling or tripling CO2 will cause very little
>>> temperature increase. This created a dilemma for the theory that a
>>> human increase in CO2 would create significant warming.
>>>
>>>
> This is a complete lie. The author should know better.
>
> The comparison with the window opagueness is completely wrong. What
> matters is that altitude (and more importantly the temperature of the
> atmosphere) where CO2 becomes IR-optically transparant to space. That is
> currently at about 220 K (around 12 km) and will drop to lower radiating
> temperature as the radiating altitude increases with increased CO2
> content. That causes reduced space-bound radiation, which causes a
> deficit in space-bound energy transfer, which causes global warming.
Wasn't it you that recently claimed (in another thread) only radiating
altitude, not GHG concentration has anything to do with radiated power?
Looks like he's saying about the same thing.
>
> It should be quite embarrasing for the author (apparently a professor in
> climate science) to be corrected by a software engineer on this subject.
>
>>> It was supposedly resolved by claiming an increase in CO2 causes a
>>> temperature increase that causes increased evaporation putting more
>>> water vapor in the atmosphere. Now the most important greenhouse gas
>>> they essentially ignored received attention. Temperature increases
>>> projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
>>> depend totally on increased water vapor.
>
> Not true at all.
> The initial temperature increase is caused by CO2. Water vapor content
> creates a feedback mechanism, which is assessed to increase the
> temperature increase be a factor of 2-3.
Does that fit with your comments in the other thread? Isn't the WV/cloud
feedback negative?
> Then there is also CH4 and
> ozone and a number of other factors (like deforestation and land-use
> change) that contribute to the overall IPCC's assessment of climate
> change.
>
>>> It is known as a positive feedback and is at the center of the debate
>>> of climate sensitivity. Evidence shows the positive feedback is wrong
>>> and climate sensitivity is overestimated.
>
> Easy to say without showing that evidence.
Not necessarily an error, but it would be better to provide a link.
>>> Negative trends in [water vapor] as found in the NCEP data would imply
>>> that long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce
>>> rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external
>>> forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2.
>
> Easy to say without showing that evidence.
Also needs a link.
>>> But this is not surprising because as Lord Monckton notes,
>>>
>>> “… the laboratory experiments in which evaluation of the CO2 forcing
>>> is attempted are of limited value when translated into the real
>>> atmosphere.” And of the claim that,”… the3.7 Wm–2 CO2 forcing at
>>> doubling is “determined by the underlying physics” he says. “If only
>>> it were!”
>
> Easy to say without showing different facts.
But not yet shown to be an error.
>
>
>>> Reality Provides the Ugly Fact.
>>>
>>> All computer models have the positive feedback mechanism built in so
>>> warming predictions are no surprise.
>
> That is not true.
> Feedback mechanisms are treated separately in all serious models.
Now all you need is a link showing even one example of that, and you
could actually refute his claim.
>>> The problem is the real world is
>>> not cooperating.
>
> Easy to say without showing evidence.
But not necessarily an error. It looks like the temperature is currently
headed down.
>>> Richard Lindzen demonstrated this clearly at the Third International
>>> Conference on Climate Change, (June 2009). He presented this diagram
>>> that compared model predictions with real world data
>>>
>>>
> The Third International Conference of Climate Change is organized by the
> Heartland Institute.
> None of their work has been accepted anywhere, probably because they are
> not a science institute.
> They are a political lobyist group sponsored by the industries they work
> for.
That's simply ad hom, and doesn't refute their work. Refuting takes some
thinking, not just a knee-jerk reaction.
> Two decades ago, that was the tabacco industry, and the Heartland
> institude worked really hard to downplay the harmfull effects of
> smoking. They even still have some of their work on their web site :
> http://www.heartland.org/suites/tobacco/index-old.html
More ad hom. That's not a refutation.
> Now, they work for the fossil fuel industry, and they work hard to
> downplay the harmfull effects of CO2.
More ad hom.
> Not just that, but they also fund smear camplains against climate
> scientists (like Hanson).
More political ad hom.
> They even set up a list of supposedly 'global warming sceptics', with
> names on that list of scientists that do not even agree being on the
> list. Read some of their actions and decisions in this rather mild
> overview of this media outlet center :
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
Ad hom is not a refutation, and shows no error in their work.
>
> This article is a fabrication of non-scientific statements, run by a
> media center that is only interested in creating the PERCEPTION of
> controversy in climate science.
Ad hom.
>
> I'll stop now. Think I made my point.
It was mostly ad hom. I'd hoped for better.
Last Post
> "Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ysGdnVR4oIbgk-bX...@giganews.com...
>
> > On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 23:14:43 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
>
> >> Anyone care to point out the inaccuracies, assumptions and outright
> >> faults (lies) in this article ?
> >> I spotted at least 15 by now, and I barely reached the fifth
> >> paragraph....
>
> > Why don't you mark them so we can discuss them?
>
> Bill, unlike to thread we peacefully interacted, here we are surrounded by
> some nasty trolls.
•• Dekker is THE nasty troll
> Also, please understand that I am just a scientist with a mind that is
> sometimes faulty.
> In that context, you ask me to comment on this article, and I will do my
> best.
> Please respond in a similar fashion.
> Let me start with a few misrepresentations and outright faults in this
> article.
>
> >> Rob
>
> >> "Last Post" <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote in message
> >>news:b675efa5-25ee-4022...@r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >> Water Vapour, Ignorance and Misunderstanding is Everywhere Politics of
> >> Climate Science: Selective Research, Ignored Facts.
>
> >> By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, July 27, 2009
>
> >> Marston Bates said, Research is the process of going up alleys to see if
> >> they are blind. But what happens if a research alley is avoided or
> >> ignored? Often the answer is in what is ignored, not what is presented.
> >> It’s an unacceptable practice in science and only indicates the
> >> political nature of the climate change research and debate.
>
> >> Why is the Most Important
> >> Greenhouse Gas Ignored?
>
> Here is the first big mistake.
> Water Vapor is not ignored in climate change research.
> For example, the IPCC spends large sections of their reports on the effects
> of water vapor and cloud influences.
> It is so important that an entire 210 page summary paper was written on it :
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_techni...
> So the statement that waper is ignored is really made-up, or inaccurate at
> best.
•• I am not going to Dekker a liar but his link is
not available and I am not on the IPCC
scientists' list. :-)
However there is nothing in the later
"Technical Paper on Climate Change and
Water" that deviates from the previous political
screed, which is/was useless.
•• When it comes to credibility I would believe Dr
Ball over any of the authors of any UN IPCC
document
> Subsequent sections explain why water is important in climate science, a
> fact that no scientist denies.
•• They did not get it straight.
>
> >> We should change the name of the planet from Earth to Water. It covers
> >> much more of the surface than land, makes it unique from the other
> >> planets, and without it life as we know it would not exist. Search for
> >> water is a constant theme in space exploration.
>
> >> Despite all this what we actually need is more knowledge about water and
> >> its functions on Earth, especially with regard to weather and climate.
> >> All the emphasis is on temperature, but what happens to precipitation is
> >> far more important for plants and agriculture. Precipitation is
> >> mentioned in claims of increased droughts with global warming, but it’s
> >> a scare tactic and illogical. Warmer temperatures mean more moisture in
> >> the air with more precipitation potential, not less. The illogic eludes
> >> notice because of lack of understanding of the role of water in
> >> atmospheric processes. Ignorance and Misunderstanding is Everywhere.
>
> All this was based on the presumption that waper (and water vapor) is
> ignored in climate science.
> It is not, so this is a continuation of inaccurate representation of the
> truth.
•• Dekker is hewing closely to the AGW alarmist
playbook hoping that bullshit will baffle brains
> >> Generally the public is unaware water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse
> >> gases by volume and CO2 is less than 4%, yet water vapor is virtually
> >> ignored. Here is a web site devoted to greenhouse gases (GHG) but water
> >> vapor, by far the most abundant and important one is listed under
> >> “other.”
>
> The web site is not mentioned in the post.
> In general, WV as a GHG is uncontested. Water vapor is reponsible for the
> majority of GHG effect on the planet.
> This article makes us believe that there is any doubt about that. And that
> is again a misrepresentation of the truth.
>
•• BULLSHIT Dekker, you are as twisted as a 5
gallon pail of pretzels. You misrepresent every
thing.
> >> Consider a major scientific error in lesson information for Biology 301
> >> at Oregon State University. Water vapor is listed under “Other trace
> >> gases” while CO2 has its own section.
>
> The link to this statement is also missing.
> So we do not know in which context the statement was made, nor do we know if
> it was made at all.
•• Check it all at OSU Biology
it is right there black and white on paper
> Another misrepresentation.
•• Dekker is a walking misrepresentation.
> >> It says warming means more
> >> evaporation and more water vapor in the atmosphere. “Whether this will
> >> amplify or dampen warming is unclear, as the effects of water vapor in
> >> the atmosphere depend on the droplet sizes and their height in the
> >> atmosphere.” This is wrong. Water droplets are not water vapor, the
> >> first is a liquid the second a gas. Water droplets as clouds influence
> >> the weather usually causing cooling. The role of clouds are a major
> >> failure of the computer climate models.
>
> The accurate statement is that clouds are still very complex to accurately
> model.
•• That is true but that is not what IPCC proclaims
> Here is only one example of a quick summary :
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/delgenio_03/
>
> Excerpt for clouds from GISS researchers :
> "What does this mean for climate change? Mao-Sung Yao, Tselioudis, Del
> Genio, and William Kovari used the GISS global climate model to predict
> changes in different types of clouds, and the sensitivity of the climate, to
> a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration. They found that low-level clouds
> in the model behaved much the same as anticipated from satellite and surface
> data. At midlatitudes, clouds became a bit thinner and less reflective in
> the simulated warmer climate. They became less reflective in the tropics as
> well, but for a different reason: clouds in the warmer climate lost more of
> their water due to greater rainfall. But other types of clouds did not
> behave in the same way. For example, the big "anvil" clouds that accompany
> thunderstorms at high altitudes became more extensive and brighter in the
> warmer climate, instead."
•• NASA/GISS are not reliable sources for
anything as long as AlGore's astronomy
consultant is in charge
>
> >> Why is water vapor ignored?
>
> It's not. Again the same fault.
•• So far you have proved nothing, let alone 15,
Time you started proving something instead
of spewing Alarmist bullshit
> >> Part of the answer is excessive, deliberate and political focus on CO2.
>
> That is a lie, for sure, since the original statement was not even correct.
•• Dekker: TWO lies in one sentence
> >> Part is because water is taken for granted and few are aware of the
> >> unique physical and chemical properties that make it different
> >> from most other elements on the planet.
>
> Empty statement.
•• No sucker! ~~ FACT!
>
> >> Few know water vapor percentage varies more in the atmosphere than any
> >> other gas. It’s almost zero percent at the poles and 4 percent at the
> >> equator. Percentage changes significantly from region to region and in a
> >> matter of hours. But these are vague figures - the reality is we have
> >> very little information about actual amounts. Global temperature
> >> measures are very limited and inadequate as Anthony Watt’s work shows.
> >> but precipitation and atmospheric moisture measures are worse. An
> >> August 2006 Science article titled “Waiting for the Monsoon” notes,
> >> Africa’s network of 1152 weather watch stations, which provide real-time
> >> data and supply international climate archives, is just one-eighth the
> >> minimum density recommended by the World Meteorological Organization
> >> (WMO).
> >> Furthermore, the stations that do exist often fail to report.
>
> More accurate data is good, but I would be very surprised if any
> peer-reviewed scientific article on climate science has based any of their
> conclusions on data from the Africa network of weather stations, unless it
> was treated with the appropriate margins of error. We know the limitations
> of current and past observations, and learn to deal with it and not draw
> conclusions from it. Standard practice in science.
>
> So I suspect this statement and paragraph are entirely fabricated to sustain
> the original faulty assertion (or water being ignored).
>
>
>
> >> Satellites offered hope with a system that measured sunlight reflected
> >> by water vapor molecules, but measurement error was very high. They
> >> claim that is reduced. After years of sustained research efforts into
> >> the accuracy of atmospheric water vapor measurements, researchers from
> >> the U.S. Department of Energy’s ARM Program have succeeded in reducing
> >> measurement uncertainties from greater than 25%
> >> to less than 3%.
>
> That is the first correct and on-subject statement that is made in this
> article.
•• an innocent falsehood
>
> >> This looks promising but it is only a reduction of uncertainties.
> >> Regardless, an accuracy of three percent is inadequate to support the
> >> claims made about the role of greenhouse gases, especially CO2.
>
> That is an opinion.
•• Perhaps, but coming from Dr Ball one must
accept it as 'expert' opinion
> >> But this
> >> won’t resolve the almost complete lack of any historic record.
>
> Correct, and historic records are treated with increased margins of error.
>
•• ROTFLMAO!!!!
> >> A Positive Feedback that is Actually Negative
>
> >> There’s a problem even if you accept the assumption an increase in CO2
> >> will cause a temperature increase. The atmosphere is almost saturated
> >> with respect to CO2’s capacity to delay heat escape. A good analogy is
> >> the objective of blocking light coming through a window. A single coat
> >> of paint will block almost all the light and is like the current level
> >> of CO2 in the atmosphere. Second and third coats block very little more
> >> light just as doubling or tripling CO2 will cause very little
> >> temperature increase. This created a dilemma for the theory that a
> >> human increase in CO2 would create significant warming.
>
> This is a complete lie. The author should know better.
•• Not true ~~ You should know better, but don't.
> The comparison with the window opagueness is completely wrong.
> What matters is that altitude (and more importantly the temperature of the
> atmosphere) where CO2 becomes IR-optically transparant to space. That is
> currently at about 220 K (around 12 km) and will drop to lower radiating
> temperature as the radiating altitude increases with increased CO2 content.
> That causes reduced space-bound radiation, which causes a deficit in
> space-bound energy transfer, which causes global warming.
Apart from your spelling, the entire 7 lines are false
>
> It should be quite embarrasing for the author (apparently a professor in
> climate science) to be corrected by a software engineer on this subject.
•• He can not be embarrassed by ignorant fools like you.
>
> >> It was supposedly resolved by claiming an increase in CO2 causes a
> >> temperature increase that causes increased evaporation putting more
> >> water vapor in the atmosphere. Now the most important greenhouse gas
> >> they essentially ignored received attention. Temperature increases
> >> projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) depend
> >> totally on increased water vapor.
>
> Not true at all.
> The initial temperature increase is caused by CO2. Water vapor content
> creates a feedback mechanism, which is assessed to increase the temperature
> increase be a factor of 2-3. Then there is also CH4 and ozone and a number
> of other factors (like deforestation and land-use change) that contribute to
> the overall IPCC's assessment of climate change.
>
•• ROTFLMAO!!
You have been royally brainwashed by the
followers of the Algore Church of Alarmism
> >> It is known as a positive feedback and
> >> is at the center of the debate of climate sensitivity. Evidence shows
> >> the positive feedback is wrong and climate sensitivity is overestimated.
>
> Easy to say without showing that evidence.
•• Where is your evidence sucker? In real science
the burden of proof is always on the proposer,
never on the sceptics.
>
> >> Negative trends in [water vapor] as found in the NCEP data would imply
> >> that long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce
> >> rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external
> >> forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2.
>
> Easy to say without showing that evidence.
>
•• Where is your evidence sucker? In real science
the burden of proof is always on the proposer,
never on the sceptics.
> >> But this is not surprising because as Lord Monckton notes,
>
> >> “… the laboratory experiments in which evaluation of the CO2 forcing is
> >> attempted are of limited value when translated into the real
> >> atmosphere.” And of the claim that,”… the3.7 Wm–2 CO2 forcing at
> >> doubling is “determined by the underlying physics” he says.
> >> “If only it were!”
>
> Easy to say without showing different facts.
>
•• Translated: "I don't have a clue"
No surprise from Dekker
>
> >> Reality Provides the Ugly Fact.
>
> >> All computer models have the positive feedback mechanism built in so
> >> warming predictions are no surprise.
>
> That is not true.
> Feedback mechanisms are treated separately in all serious models.
•• That effectively agrees with Dr Ball and you a
software "engineer" should know better.
> >> The problem is the real world is
> >> not cooperating.
>
> Easy to say without showing evidence.
•• ROTFLMAO: Wipe the shit out of your eyes
and look around you, the evidence is there.
You just might be stupid enough to ignore it.
> >> Richard Lindzen demonstrated this clearly at the Third
> >> International Conference on Climate Change, (June 2009). He presented
> >> this diagram that compared model predictions with real world data
> >> issue of global warming is wrong.” He then identified the real problem.
Bill Ward
> On Aug 7, 5:40 am, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:
>> "Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ysGdnVR4oIbgk-bX...@giganews.com...
>>
>> > On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 23:14:43 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
>>
>> >> Anyone care to point out the inaccuracies, assumptions and outright
>> >> faults (lies) in this article ?
>> >> I spotted at least 15 by now, and I barely reached the fifth
>> >> paragraph....
>>
>> > Why don't you mark them so we can discuss them?
>>
>> Bill, unlike to thread we peacefully interacted, here we are surrounded
>> by some nasty trolls.
>
> •• Dekker is THE nasty troll
I think that's a bit harsh. We've had a rather civil thread going for
several days with no problems. His posts are informative and on topic,
and he seems willing to learn. Maybe he just has a low tolerance for
insults.
Last Post
> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:28:56 -0700, Last Post wrote:
> > On Aug 7, 5:40 am, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:
> >> "Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:ysGdnVR4oIbgk-bX...@giganews.com...
>
> >> > On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 23:14:43 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
>
> >> >> Anyone care to point out the inaccuracies, assumptions and outright
> >> >> faults (lies) in this article ?
> >> >> I spotted at least 15 by now, and I barely reached the fifth
> >> >> paragraph....
>
> >> > Why don't you mark them so we can discuss them?
>
> >> Bill, unlike to thread we peacefully interacted, here we are surrounded
> >> by some nasty trolls.
>
> > •• Dekker is THE nasty troll
>
> I think that's a bit harsh. We've had a rather civil thread going for
> several days with no problems. His posts are informative and on topic,
> and he seems willing to learn. Maybe he just has a low tolerance for
> insults.
•• It's my post that started the thread and perhaps I have little use
for bullshit which is all that we get from Dekker and Cahill. It is
the alarmists who are on the hook for proof but all they, at best, can
say IPCC says ....
–– ––
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
they provided data that climate change is being
effected by commerce and industry, and not by
natural phenomena.
Bill Ward
> On Aug 7, 5:52 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:28:56 -0700, Last Post wrote:
>> > On Aug 7, 5:40 am, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:
>> >> "Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:ysGdnVR4oIbgk-bX...@giganews.com...
>>
>> >> > On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 23:14:43 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Anyone care to point out the inaccuracies, assumptions and
>> >> >> outright faults (lies) in this article ?
>> >> >> I spotted at least 15 by now, and I barely reached the fifth
>> >> >> paragraph....
>>
>> >> > Why don't you mark them so we can discuss them?
>>
>> >> Bill, unlike to thread we peacefully interacted, here we are
>> >> surrounded by some nasty trolls.
>>
>> > •• Dekker is THE nasty troll
>>
>> I think that's a bit harsh. We've had a rather civil thread going for
>> several days with no problems. His posts are informative and on topic,
>> and he seems willing to learn. Maybe he just has a low tolerance for
>> insults.
>
> •• It's my post that started the thread and perhaps I have little use
> for bullshit which is all that we get from Dekker and Cahill. It is the
> alarmists who are on the hook for proof but all they, at best, can say
> IPCC says ....
Sorry I wasn't clear. I was referring to another thread in alt.global-
warming, where he has maintained an interesting discussion with no sign
of nastiness, even though we have different points of view.
<snip remainder>
Claudius Denk
> "Bill Ward" <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ysGdnVR4oIbgk-bX...@giganews.com...
>
> > On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 23:14:43 -0700, Rob Dekker wrote:
>
> >> Anyone care to point out the inaccuracies, assumptions and outright
> >> faults (lies) in this article ?
> >> I spotted at least 15 by now, and I barely reached the fifth
> >> paragraph....
>
> > Why don't you mark them so we can discuss them?
>
> Bill, unlike to thread we peacefully interacted, here we are surrounded by
> some nasty trolls.
> Also, please understand that I am just a scientist with a mind that is
> sometimes faulty.
> In that context, you ask me to comment on this article, and I will do my
> best.
> Please respond in a similar fashion.
> Let me start with a few misrepresentations and outright faults in this
> article.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Rob
>
> >>news:b675efa5-25ee-4022...@r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >> Water Vapour, Ignorance and Misunderstanding is Everywhere Politics of
> >> Climate Science: Selective Research, Ignored Facts.
>
> >> By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, July 27, 2009
>
> >> Marston Bates said, Research is the process of going up alleys to see if
> >> they are blind. But what happens if a research alley is avoided or
> >> ignored? Often the answer is in what is ignored, not what is presented.
> >> It’s an unacceptable practice in science and only indicates the
> >> political nature of the climate change research and debate.
>
> >> Why is the Most Important
> >> Greenhouse Gas Ignored?
>
> Here is the first big mistake.
> Water Vapor is not ignored in climate change research.
Your dispute is disingenuous in that the paper explicated the exact
way in which Water Vapor is being ignored:
************
Generally the public is unaware water vapor is
95% of the greenhouse gases by volume and
CO2 is less than 4%, yet water vapor is virtually
ignored. Here is a web site devoted to greenhouse
gases (GHG) but water vapor, by far the most
abundant and important one is listed under “other.”
************
> For example, the IPCC spends large sections of their reports on the effects
> of water vapor and cloud influences.
> It is so important that an entire 210 page summary paper was written on it :http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_techni...
> So the statement that waper is ignored is really made-up, or inaccurate at
> best.
Irrelevant. Address the issue you evasive twit.
>
> Subsequent sections explain why water is important in climate science, a
> fact that no scientist denies.
If they don't deny it then why do the misrepresent this reality in
their propaganda? Obviously the answer to this question is because it
doesn't suit their political agenda.
>
> >> We should change the name of the planet from Earth to Water. It covers
> >> much more of the surface than land, makes it unique from the other
> >> planets, and without it life as we know it would not exist. Search for
> >> water is a constant theme in space exploration.
>
> >> Despite all this what we actually need is more knowledge about water and
> >> its functions on Earth, especially with regard to weather and climate.
> >> All the emphasis is on temperature, but what happens to precipitation is
> >> far more important for plants and agriculture. Precipitation is
> >> mentioned in claims of increased droughts with global warming, but it’s
> >> a scare tactic and illogical. Warmer temperatures mean more moisture in
> >> the air with more precipitation potential, not less. The illogic eludes
> >> notice because of lack of understanding of the role of water in
> >> atmospheric processes. Ignorance and Misunderstanding is Everywhere.
>
> All this was based on the presumption that waper (and water vapor) is
> ignored in climate science.
Bullshit. It was based on the *fact* that it is intentioally ignored
in the propaganda that was directly quoted.
> It is not, so this is a continuation of inaccurate representation of the
> truth.
Accuracy was our point, you evasive jackass.
>
> >> Generally the public is unaware water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse
> >> gases by volume and CO2 is less than 4%, yet water vapor is virtually
> >> ignored. Here is a web site devoted to greenhouse gases (GHG) but water
> >> vapor, by far the most abundant and important one is listed under
> >> “other.”
>
> The web site is not mentioned in the post.
> In general, WV as a GHG is uncontested. Water vapor is reponsible for the
> majority of GHG effect on the planet.
Then why doesn't AGW propaganda reflect this truth?
> This article makes us believe that there is any doubt about that. And that
> is again a misrepresentation of the truth.
You are trying to defend a lie.
Why?
> What matters is that altitude (and more importantly the temperature of the
> atmosphere) where CO2 becomes IR-optically transparant to space.
You whackos just make shit up. Show us the experimental evidence that
confirms this assertion. You can't. Because all of your evidence
exists only in your imagination.
> That is
> currently at about 220 K (around 12 km) and will drop to lower radiating
> temperature as the radiating altitude increases with increased CO2 content.
> That causes reduced space-bound radiation, which causes a deficit in
> space-bound energy transfer, which causes global warming.
Speculative nonsense based on zero experimental evidence.
>
> It should be quite embarrasing for the author (apparently a professor in
> climate science) to be corrected by a software engineer on this subject.
>
>
>
> >> It was supposedly resolved by
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Last Post
He pretends he is a scientist whereas he is a
software writer. He, Cahill and Pissy Pants
are about as useless as they come. They DO
belong in alt.usenet.kooks.
Last Post
Rob Dekker
"Claudius Denk" <claudi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4391941b-4b75-4cdd...@d15g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
....
> > For example, the IPCC spends large sections of their reports on the
> > effects
> > of water vapor and cloud influences.
> > It is so important that an entire 210 page summary paper was written on
> > it
> > :http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_techni...
> > So the statement that waper is ignored is really made-up, or inaccurate
> > at
> > best.
>
> Irrelevant. Address the issue you evasive twit.
With that attitude you are not getting anywhere with me....
Rob
Rob Dekker
.....
> >
> >�� Indeed Dekker is irrelevant totally.
That is an opinion.
> > He pretends he is a scientist whereas he is a
> > software writer.
I am a computer scientist.
> > He, Cahill and Pissy Pants
> > are about as useless as they come. They DO
> > belong in alt.usenet.kooks.
That's also an opinion.
> > In real science the burden of proof is always on
> > the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
> > neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
> > iota of valid data for global warming
That is not correct. Start with this summary :
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf
Which shows that your statement is a fabricated lie.
> > nor have
> > they provided data that climate change is being
> > effected by commerce and industry, and not by
> > natural phenomena.
There is so much data on this that you loose any shred of credibility that
you may have left over every time you post this statement.
Claudius Denk
> "Claudius Denk" <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Don't go away mad . . . just go away.
Last Post
•• And stay away
Last Post
> "Last Post" <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote in message
> news:7ab62ec2-9033-41a4...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >•• Indeed Dekker is irrelevant totally.
>
> That is an opinion.
•• Certainly, a well considered and valid opinion,
based on the nonsense you post.
> > > He pretends he is a scientist whereas he is a
> > > software writer.
>
> I am a computer scientist.
•• and write software is what you do.
Because you studied "computer science" ...
> > > He, Cahill and Pissy Pants
> > > are about as useless as they come. They DO
> > > belong in alt.usenet.kooks.
>
> That's also an opinion.
•• A valid expert opinion
>
> > > In real science the burden of proof is always on
> > > the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
> > > neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
> > > iota of valid data for global warming
>
> That is not correct. Start with this summary :http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf
•• ROTFLMAO ~~ That line will get you a few
titters in Comedy Central, but don't quit your
day job.
> > > nor have
> > > they provided data that climate change is being
> > > effected by commerce and industry, and not by
> > > natural phenomena.
>
> There is so much data on this that you loose any shred of credibility that
> you may have left over every time you post this statement.
•• That is what I like about you Dekker.
You whine about the credibility of my sig.
You would better think about your own
credibility which is at the bottom of your
municipal dump.
–– ––
In real science the burden of proof is always on
the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
iota of valid data for global warming nor have
Bret Cahill
>
> > That is an opinion.
>
> •• Certainly, a well considered and valid opinion,
> based on the nonsense you post.
>
> > > > He pretends he is a scientist whereas he is a
> > > > software writer.
>
> > I am a computer scientist.
>
> •• and write software is what you do.
Software writers/computer scientists are held in even lower esteem
than axe murders.
Anyway, how's your "CO2 is good for you" experiment coming along?
Remember, if you need more duct tape or bags to post a mailing
address.
Bret Cahill
Rob Dekker
> > > > Irrelevant. Address the issue you evasive twit.
> >
> > > With that attitude you are not getting anywhere with me....
> >
> > > Rob
>
> Don't go away mad . . . just go away.
>
> �� And stay away
Gentlemen.
I will comply when you guys stop spreading lies and irrelevant opinions in
the sci.energy newsgroup that I happen to visit monitor.
So one way to get rid of me would be to omit sci.energy from your crosspost
list.
Now if you happen to have some constructive statements and information
regarding the topic of water vapor, or have any evidence that the scientific
community ignores or misunderstands the importance of water vaper, then show
it. Otherwise posts like this will either go completely unnoticed or you
will get somebody like me, dumb enough to point you that Last Post Leonard
keeps posting lies to this fine new group.
Enjoy the weekend.
Rob
Rob Dekker
On Aug 8, 6:04 pm, "Rob Dekker" <r...@verific.com> wrote:
> "Last Post" <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote in message
> news:7ab62ec2-9033-41a4...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> > >�� Indeed Dekker is irrelevant totally.
> >
> > That is an opinion.
>
> �� Certainly, a well considered and valid opinion,
> based on the nonsense you post.
>
> > > > He pretends he is a scientist whereas he is a
> > > software writer.
> >
> > I am a computer scientist.
>
> �� and write software is what you do.
> Because you studied "computer science" ...
>
> > > > He, Cahill and Pissy Pants
> > > > are about as useless as they come. They DO
> > > > belong in alt.usenet.kooks.
> >
> > That's also an opinion.
>
> �� A valid expert opinion
Let me see...
You post your beliefs like a madman, but cannot handle any criticism of any
kind, and certainly do not have the ability to form an argument based on
reason or verifiable facts. Instead you post childish insults.
You are living in a bubble of your own dogmatic belief world, you flame at
any authority and you piss at reason.
That's an expert ? An expert in what ?
Rob
Last Post
Dekker and Cahill ~
two clowns without a clue between them