OT - CO2 sensitivity

[Buchan Meteo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15858603

Interesting article.

The last sentence fits in nicely with an earlier post on the topic of
emissions.

--
Gianna
Peterhead, Scotland

buchan-meteo.org.uk

[Weatherlawyer]

On Nov 25, 12:40 pm, Buchan Meteo <giannastef...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15858603
>
> Interesting article.
>
> The last sentence fits in nicely with an earlier post on the topic of
> emissions.

"Previous climate models have used meteorological measurements from
the past 150 years to estimate the climate's sensitivity to rising
CO2.

From these models, scientists find it difficult to narrow their
projections down to a single figure with any certainty, and instead
project a range of temperatures that they expect, given a doubling of
atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels."

A stupendously stupid preconception. How many such sites are still in
operation in exactly the same place without regional disturbance.

In Britain urbanisation and land management has completely changed in
the last 50 years and it was always changing. That is a kind of climat
change in itself.

And you can't draw up a computer mopdel that compensates fro that.

then there is the butterfly effect that computer models all suffer
from.

Why do you think they need superduper computers and then need to
compare their outputs with other sites computer runs?

If they can't get it right past 5 days with all the data and other
resources what the hell is all the talk about Glowballs going to
accomplish?

They have only just discovered their chemistry about peat bogs is all
to cock. There's another well timed furore about the East Anglian
email affair going on too. And everyone seems to be bamboozled about
12 logs from a Siberian swamp.

WTH?

Anyone who wastes time on it would be better occupied pleasuring
themselves.

[Dawlish]

When it comes down to it and for all your bluster, you actually know
very little about the subject do you?

Read the BEST (Berkeley Earth) report and this presentation on
Radiative transmission theory. They will both help to assuage your
ignorance about UHI and the actual effects of doubling CO2 - climate
models attempt to model feedbacks on top of what *will* happen to
global temperatures with a doubling of CO2.

http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/meetings/2009summercoll/Barnet2_InfraRadTran.pdf

http://berkeleyearth.org/

[Weatherlawyer]

On Nov 25, 3:59 pm, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/meetings/2009summercoll/Barnet2_I...

Dickhead:

• As more absorbing gas is added
the atmosphere becomes more
opaque and the effective level
of radiation to space is higher.
• If the gas is most effective in
stratosphere then it becomes a
more efficient radiator and
atmosphere cools.
– Because stratosphere warms with
height.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
• If the gas is most effective in
troposphere then it is a less
efficient radiator and
atmosphere warms.


How did you miss that?

[Dawlish]

Typical W foulness when challenged. You probably actually believe
Miskolczi, as you think the same way about his mistakes about
blackbodies and photons, but no-one cites him because his intial
assumptions are quite wrong (refrains from foul insult, but you do
deserve it). Your post shows you know little about climate models,
however.

[Weatherlawyer]

On Nov 26, 9:35 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/meetings/2009summercoll/Barnet2_InfraRadTran.pdf
>
> > 1• As more absorbing gas is added the atmosphere becomes
> > more opaque and radiation to space is higher.
>
> > 2• If the gas is most effective in the stratosphere then it
> > becomes a more efficient radiator and the atmosphere cools.
>
> > 3• The stratosphere warms with height.

>
> > How did you miss that?
>
> Typical W foulness when challenged.

> Your post shows you know little about climate models.

Why do I bother?

I was actually quoting a snippet from the link you posted without
reading.

What I can't understand is that you understand when you have been
insulted but refuse to realise why.

There is a limit to how much fun I can allow myself to have at your
expense. Any more and I will regret it

[Dawlish]

On Nov 26, 6:30 pm, Weatherlawyer <weatherlaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 9:35 am, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>

> > > >http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/meetings/2009summercoll/Barnet2_I...

>
> > > 1• As more absorbing gas is added the atmosphere becomes
> > > more opaque and radiation to space is higher.
>
> > > 2• If the gas is most effective in the stratosphere then it
> > > becomes a more efficient radiator and the atmosphere cools.
>
> > > 3• The stratosphere warms with height.
>
> > > How did you miss that?
>
> > Typical W foulness when challenged.
> > Your post shows you know little about climate models.
>
> Why do I bother?
>
> I was actually quoting a snippet from the link you posted without
> reading.
>
> What I can't understand is that you understand when you have been
> insulted but refuse to realise why.
>
> There is a limit to how much fun I can allow myself to have at your
> expense. Any more and I will regret it

Why do I bother? You really are a foul waste of time W. Back to
ignoring you, like everyone else does.

Bye.

[Weatherlawyer]

"A New Assessment of Global Warming:

The most important indicator of global warming, by far, is the land
and sea surface temperature record.

This has been criticised in several ways, including the choice of
stations and the methods for correcting systematic errors.

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study sets out to to do a new
analysis of the surface temperature record in a rigorous manner that
addresses this criticism.

We are using over 39,000 unique stations, which is more than five
times the 7,280 stations found in the Global Historical Climatology
Network Monthly data set (GHCN-M) that has served as the focus of many
climate studies.

[Presumably this is new "old data"?
Devoid of Siberian logerrumisums]

Our aim is to resolve current criticism of the former temperature
analyses and to prepare an open record that will allow rapid response
to further criticism or suggestions.

[Sort of paralleling the findings of the Glowballers of Britain
without the poor public relations?]

Our results include not only our best estimate for the global
temperature change, but estimates of the uncertainties in the record."

http://berkeleyearth.org/study.php

To how many decimated plaice do these models run?
I can't imagine anyone wants me to take a scythe to this:
> http://berkeleyearth.org/dataset.php

It reads like an astrology column in a woman's magazine.

And I can't be bothered. Once you finish pointing out the obvious you
are left with the flavour of too much protein and not enough water.

I don't refute the earth is in trouble. I have already stated
elsewhere that we are facing Armageddon.
But the answers are not available from a computer.
Have never been and never will be.

Having said that I am still in favour of having another super computer
at Exitdoor.

Hell, if I were the boss we would buy more than one, one for each Uni
that does meteorology as well. It's only round pressed metal, or notes
as the case might be.
(More likely just a jiggle in the pilfer sack.)

And I'd sack every moron who "thinks" like Dawlish.
And those who act like Lawrence too, after a verbal warning and maybe
a written one.
Or not as the case might be.

As for abuse, I doubt it is possible to abuse Dawlish. One could
compliment him, overlook his short comings, ignore him or speak very
plainly to him.

If I called the ******* **** a ******* ****. That would just be the
truth.
But a waste of time.
And stars.

That's enough of this silliness; over to small brain.

Weatherlawyer is out of this thread, Glowballs and sensitivity in
general.

Ta ta.

[NUTTER]

who the fuck do you think your are judging anyone on here
who made you judge and jury of USW?
your not our policemean

free speech

from all of us on usw