How can a small amount of CO2 make such a large difference?
Roger Coppock
Please see the following demonstration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
In California, this demonstration is junior high school general
science. (I've watched teachers being trained to give it.) So, it
may be over the head of the fossil fools on alt.global-warming.
Well Done
>How can a small amount of CO2 make such a large difference?
>
What's really fascinating about AGW true believers is that they do
indeed know about science, yet they choose to ignore it and go with
the appalling nonsense being seeded by those whose funding depends on
the theory of AGW "winning".
Roger:
Science tells us atmospheric CO2 follows temp increase.
Science tells us man's contribution to atmo CO2 is negligable.
Science tells us Earth's temp (as best as we can measure/estimate) has
been decreasing for years.
Science (math & logic) tells us that closing almost all temp stations
that show cooling will make it look like temps are rising.
Science (computer) tells us that it's easy to write a program that
ignores data outside prescribed parameters and substitutes its own
coded data.
Honor, common sense, and concern for others tells us that's the WRONG
thing to do.
Having said that, I can only conclude that AGW proponents lack
scientific knowledge, honor, common sense, and any concept of right
and wrong.
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
Catoni
According to erschoedinger, Skeptics should not use Youtube, even
though I used it with science references.
"Sorry, I don't consider youtube science, but now I know what you
mean when you say you study science -- you watch youtube."
- erschroedinger
"Youtube is not science. Sorry to have to break that to you."
- erschroedinger
(from the thread Glacier loss recently May 21, 4:01 p.m.)
However, it appears that Alarmists can use You Tube all they want
as a reference.
Alarmist mantra: "Do as we say ! Not as we do ! "
Roger Coppock
On Dec 22, 5:00 pm, Well Done <WellD...@WellHoned.com> wrote:
[ . . . ]
> Science tells us man's contribution to atmo CO2 is negligable.
> Science tells us Earth's temp (as best as we can measure/estimate) has
> been decreasing for years.
Roger Coppock
> On Dec 22, 7:51 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> > How can a small amount of CO2 make such a large difference?
> > Please see the following demonstration:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
>
> > In California, this demonstration is junior high school general
> > science. (I've watched teachers being trained to give it.) So, it
> > may be over the head of the fossil fools on alt.global-warming.
>
> According to erschoedinger, Skeptics should not use Youtube, even
> though I used it with science references.
>
> "Sorry, I don't consider youtube science, but now I know what you
> mean when you say you study science -- you watch youtube."
> - erschroedinger
>
> "Youtube is not science. Sorry to have to break that to you."
> - erschroedinger
>
nutbnocopp
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:9d6f3363-1a75-41a8...@z17g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
> How can a small amount of CO2 make such a large difference?
> Please see the following demonstration:
>
ROTFLMAO
It makes NO DIFFERENCE in New Zealand!
NIWA Forced To Drop Warmed Up Climate Data, Now No Warming In NZ Since 1960
December 23 2010
An adjustment is claimed in New Zealand:
New Zealand National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research has been
forced to retract their phony temperature numbers for the past century.
No warming has occurred in NZ since 1960.
NIWA has abandoned the official national temperature record and created a
new one following sustained pressure from the NZ Climate Science Coalition
and the Climate Conversation Group.
This case - which began last year and led to court - is still in dispute.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1012/S00054/climate-science-coalition-vindicated.htm
======================================
20 December 2010
Press Release: Climate Conversation
Climate Science Coalition Vindicated
BoMshell: feeble support from Aussie peers
NIWA has abandoned the official national temperature record and created a
new one following sustained pressure from the NZ Climate Science Coalition
and the Climate Conversation Group.
Spokesman for the joint temperature project, Richard Treadgold, Convenor of
the CCG, said today: "We congratulate NIWA for producing their review of the
NZ temperature record - more than a year after we challenged it - and we
think it's great that NIWA have produced a graph with full details behind
it.
"But we note that, after 12 months of futile attempts to persuade the
public, misleading answers to questions in the Parliament from ACT and
reluctant but gradual capitulation from NIWA, their relentless defence of
the old temperature series has simply evaporated. They've finally given in,
but without our efforts the faulty graph would still be there."
Mr Treadgold described the replacement as a full exoneration of the
criticism levelled at the Coalition by NIWA, saying: "All we ever asked for
were the adjustments and the reasons for them. The discourteous reproaches
and misleading academic references we received from them were surprising.
For them finally to agree with us, throw away the series and recreate it is
a complete vindication for us."
The affair began on November 25 2009, with the publication of the
controversial paper "Are we feeling warmer yet?" Mr Treadgold said that a
press release from NIWA the next day was misleading, claiming that their
analysis used "internationally accepted techniques."
"But the 'technique' they used has not been published, peer-reviewed,
accepted or used anywhere," said Mr Treadgold. "They since admit that no
altitude adjustments were made in Wellington, and the Coalition had not
pretended to replicate the series, they had only graphed the data on NIWA's
web site, noted some adjustments had been made and asked: 'what are they?'
That entirely reasonable question was ignored by the managers of this public
agency."
NIWA's complete renunciation of the old graph was confirmed recently by
their admission in a court document that the graph was not an "official"
record. Which means they have also disowned Dr Jim Salinger's methodology,
which created the graph.
BoMshell - feeble endorsement
Mr Treadgold said that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, specifically
nominated by NIWA to peer-review their work, do not completely endorse it.
He also noted a curious error in the letter from the BoM, which twice omits
Hokitika from the list of stations they examined.
"NIWA's CEO John Morgan claims that 'the scientists from the Bureau's
National Climate Centre concluded that the results and underlying
methodology used by NIWA were sound.'" Mr Treadgold said he was disturbed
not to find any such statement. "All it says is that evidence provided by
NIWA generally supports but does not prove the corrections they made."
He said, "The Australian Bureau of Meteorology, specifically nominated by
NIWA to peer-review their work, give only cautious support to the document.
All it will say is that evidence provided by NIWA generally supports (but
does not prove) the corrections they made.
"The letter contains no such endorsement. All it says is the evidence NIWA
provided supports the corrections they made. The BoM says they will assess
'the ideas, methods and conclusions of the papers' for 'scientific error,
internal consistency, clarity and scientific logic'. But they say nothing
about that assessment and give only cautious support to the document.
"We suspect the BoM did not fully endorse NIWA's adjustments because the
lack of raw data meant that a detailed and complete examination was
impossible.
"The BoM omits the reassurance we seek, so, in the end, the single purpose
of the peer review - to give the NZ public confidence in NIWA's work - has
not been met.
"The review was not comprehensive, and it is disappointing to hear Mr Morgan
claim that it was."
The science
Mr Treadgold said the people of New Zealand, for the first time, now have an
official although provisional temperature record of the last 100 years. It
is provisional because NIWA still has two steps to take to complete the
project:
It is working on calculations of the confidence intervals, or margins of
error, which will be published later.
It is yet to publish its methodology, which is to be independently
peer-reviewed for a scientific journal.
Coalition scientists look forward to examining this new series closely over
the coming months to determine its accuracy. The two steps outstanding from
NIWA will be of great benefit in this regard.
Mr Treadgold said: "It's reassuring to know that, for the first time ever,
NIWA understands their own graph. This must be a tremendous relief for NIWA
staff and management. It is certainly a relief for the NZ public.
"The review is lengthy and full of detail, which we applaud, and it will
take some time to examine. We won't comment on scientific aspects of the 7SS
until that has been done. However, we have some initial observations.
"Almost all of the 34 adjustments made by Dr Jim Salinger to the 7SS have
been abandoned, along with his version of the comparative station
methodology.
"NIWA is clearly not prepared to defend the adjustments exposed in Are we
feeling warmer yet? But it took a court case to force them into a corner.
"NIWA makes the huge admission that New Zealand has experienced hardly any
warming during the last half-century. For all their talk about warming, for
all their rushed invention of the "Eleven-Station Series" to prove warming,
this new series shows that no warming has occurred here since about 1960.
Almost all the warming took place from 1940-60, when the IPCC says that the
effect of CO2 concentrations was trivial. Indeed, global temperatures were
falling during that period.
"The new temperature record shows no evidence of a connection with global
warming. Since that's the reason this tempest in a teacup has brewed in the
first place, it should simmer down now."
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1012/S00054/climate-science-coalition-vindicated.htm
Related Stories
Adjustments cast doubt on NIWA methods 01/12/2009
NIWA "adjusts" records to show warming 26/11/2009
Warmest Regards
B0nz0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip
now due to mankind. The planet has a natural thermostat"
Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Professor of Meteorology MIT,
Former IPCC Lead Author
"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
wrong. Period."
Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"
"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips
"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated
Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.
Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that
it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of
mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible."
Bertrand Russell
nutbnocopp
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:9d6f3363-1a75-41a8...@z17g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
> Please see the following demonstration:
>
nutbnocopp
k...@kymhorsell.com
...
> Science tells us atmospheric CO2 follows temp increase.
> Science tells us man's contribution to atmo CO2 is negligable.
> Science tells us Earth's temp (as best as we can measure/estimate) has
> been decreasing for years.
> Science (math & logic) tells us that closing almost all temp stations
> that show cooling will make it look like temps are rising.
> Science (computer) tells us that it's easy to write a program that
> ignores data outside prescribed parameters and substitutes its own
> coded data.
> Honor, common sense, and concern for others tells us that's the WRONG
> thing to do.
Circular aguments aside, anyone can in principle decide for themselves
what's going on. It only takes what I regard as highschool math.
Look at the MSN weather site.
For any location (in the US, at least :) it will can bring up for any
month or any day of the year the prev low temp record and the prev high
temp record.
If "nothing is going on" then the proportion of times the low temp record
is more recent than the high temp record will be about 1/2.
If the number of months with low record more recent than high is greater than
(say) 10 out of 12 then there is a cooling trend; if the number of "more
recent" high records is greater than 10 out of 12 there is a warming trend.
If you find more towns and cities have a warming trend than a cooling trend
or vice-versa then you know what is going on.
Why it is connected with human activities (i.e. towns and cities
listed on MSB wather) or, more generally, why it is going on is then a
matter for further study. :)
(And how to turn the pattern of record lows & highs into an actual
number in terms of deg C per century is a matter of college-level
statistics; something hardly anyone ever did :).
--
Ain't going to happen because there is no raw 'uncorrupted' data.
-- george <gbl...@hnpl.net>
k...@kymhorsell.com
> Tell enough lies and you live inside your own little made-up world.
> [ . . . ]
>> Science tells us man's contribution to atmo CO2 is negligable.
> NOPE - - Simply a lie
>> Science tells us Earth's temp (as best as we can measure/estimate) has
> NOPE - - Scientists know how to compute statistical significance.
Even most of the hard-core "skeptics" will admit there is a
warming trend due to emergence from the last ice-age. Appararently
this is the thin end of a wedge for the hard-hardcore. :)
--
I believe my post was cogent, then you changed the original posit just
to be a smart-ass.
-- John Stafford <nh...@droffats.net>, 09 Dec 2010 16:30:53 -0600
Peter Franks
You have got to be frick'n kidding. This demonstration is nothing more
than a moron sieve --
1) Ink is not CO2. You can fool the fools into thinking that it is, but
it isn't.
2) It hasn't been established that the opacity vs. dilution between
India ink and CO2 are even similar, let alone sufficiently close for
equivalency demonstrations such as this.
3) The ink is diluted to 10%. Why is that? I'll tell you why, because
if you use it at concentration, 280 PPM is pure black, as is 390, 560,
1000. THAT would be closer to the truth of the matter. 280 PPM of CO2
is TOTALLY OPAQUE (completely black for the simpletons). Dan Miller and
his half-witted ilk needs to explain how you can make black more black...
4) Goebbels would be proud of his protoge. This is nothing but
propaganda, staged as 'science'. The magical effects are even clever
enough to fool 'real' scientists, as well as the fake ones like the one
that started this thread.
Coppock isn't going to pay attention to my posts, and any response that
he may give will be total devoid of fact, logic, or reasoning. So my
plea goes out to any lurkers.
DON'T BE FOOLED BY THESE PEDANTIC DEMONSTRATIONS. THEY AREN'T
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CO2 EFFECTS IN THE ENVIRONMENT. PLEASE PLEASE
PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF BEFORE BEING SUCKERED INTO THESE STUPID
DEMONSTRATIONS.
Last Post
> In sci.skeptic Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> > Tell enough lies and you live inside your own little made-up world.
> > On Dec 22, 5:00?pm, Well Done <WellD...@WellHoned.com> wrote:
> > [ . . . ]
> >> Science tells us man's contribution to atmo CO2 is negligable.
> > NOPE - - Simply a lie
> >> Science tells us Earth's temp (as best as we can measure/estimate) has
> >> been decreasing for years. ?
> > NOPE - - Scientists know how to compute statistical significance.
>
> Even most of the hard-core "skeptics" will admit there is a
> warming trend due to emergence from the last ice-age. Appararently
> this is the thin end of a wedge for the hard-hardcore. :)
ø Sorry to disappoint you Kym.
The last ice age ended about 116,500 years ago.
The interglacial period ended about 1,500 years ago
The past 1,500 years has been the down slope to
the next ice age. Granted the slope has been uneven,
with a number of periods like the Mediaeval Warm
Period and the "Little Ice Age". But the past 150 years
has been generally in a down trend.
— —
* Tyndall was the first to correctly measure the
infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen,
oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone,
methane, etc. He concluded that water vapour is
the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the
atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air
temperature. Absorption by the bulk of the other
gases is negligible.
Absorption_by_the_bulk_of_the_other_gases_is_negligible.
Every indication points to reglaciation commencing
some time after 2020 but not later than 2050.
There will be hot days in the usual hot spots and
cold and blizzard in the snow belts. There will be a
lot of extremes so prepare for lots of hots and colds,
batten the hatches, store backup fuel. The ice will
not appear in the 50th parallel before 5-10,000 yrs.
Bret Cahill
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
> It can't Roger, ya fearless furry freakshow.
Instead of deleting the video why doesn't the skeptic community get
together and do a video proving a small amount of anything can never
have much effect on anything.
The denier community could do a whole series of videos. One denier is
on youtube ingesting micrograms of plutonium, another denier is
permanently changing the pH of his blood, another denier is
permanently changing his internal body temperature a couple of
degrees . . .
Just don't mention my name.
Bret Cahill
Angelo Campanella
> In sci.skeptic Well Done <Well...@wellhoned.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Science tells us atmospheric CO2 follows temp increase.
Implying that higher temperatures lead to out-gassing of ocean waters
and increased plant like (sounds true to me).
>> Science tells us man's contribution to atmo CO2 is negligible.
Contribution to production... All the greenery growing all over the
Earth pours CO2 into the atmosphere. Some hangs in the greenery.
>> Science tells us Earth's temp (as best as we can measure/estimate) has
>> been decreasing for years.
Haven't seen uncorrupted data for some years... bummer.
>> Science (math & logic) tells us that closing almost all temp stations
>> that show cooling will make it look like temps are rising.
Wow!.... ya think?
>> Science (computer) tells us that it's easy to write a program that
>> ignores data outside prescribed parameters and substitutes its own
>> coded data.
GIGO
>> Honor, common sense, and concern for others tells us that's the WRONG
>> thing to do.
Agreed.
My simplistic take on CC is that CO2 can interact uniquely with
radiation only in the atmosphere above the weather altitudes, where CO2 is
the dominant reactor (plus ozone where it occurs).
At lower altitudes and near the surface, water vapor is the dominant
heat energy reactor. Matters will not change there on the basis of CO2
concentration.
The thermal insulation by such clear upper air is set by nitrogen and
oxygen, both of which have no means to interact with other than thermal
conductivity since that air is dominantly completely transparent to much
ultraviolet, all light and most infrared radiations. Added C02 does provide
a tiny bit of extra thermal insulation. The infrared CO2 absorption
wavelengths (2.7u, 2.8u, 4.6u, 14u to 18u (u=micrometers)) provide heat
absorption by day and heat loss re-radiation at night. This interaction adds
more heat conductivity into the air. So, if we want to call the atmosphere a
"blanket" and if we want to ascribe the power of the "Greenhouse Effect" to
that upper atmosphere, we are faced with the reality that any atmosphere
that is loaded with more CO2 will become a worse blanket, ergo said extra
CO2 will make the climate COOLER, which is what I think I see from time to
time, and I have noted to some colleagues for many years. Where are the
calculations?
The politicians have accepted the opposite (hot) of truth (cold), dupes
as they are, especially the Democrats!
Not the first time.
I, for one, am simply ignoring all the climate hoopla. I can't
stop the politicians from swallowing it hook like and sinker, but I urge all
of you to do the same as I do: Place zero value in all your climate related
decisions and pleas. The sky is not falling .
Ange
Bret Cahill
> > Please see the following demonstration:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
>
> > In California, this demonstration is junior high school general
> > science. (I've watched teachers being trained to give it.) So, it
> > may be over the head of the fossil fools on alt.global-warming.
. . .
> 1) Ink is not CO2.
When it comes to trapping electromagnetic radiation and converting it
to heat, ink in water and CO2 in air both do the exact same thing.
The only difference is the wavelength is shorter for visible light /
ink than IR / CO2.
For very little money the experiment could, in fact, be "normalized"
with high intensity lamps, thermometers and cooling coils to show the
temp increase over time.
Rightard deniers are desperate, frightened silly wage slaves living
from pay check to pay check and saying anything they think will help
them cling to their dead end low paying jobs so anything requiring any
planning more than two weeks into the future will not be very
important to them.
That's why rightards yell, "YEEEHAAA!" over an oil well discovery that
postpones peak oil by -- get this -- 3 weeks.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > warming trend due to emergence from the last ice-age. Appararently
> > this is the thin end of a wedge for the hard-hardcore. :)
> ø Sorry to disappoint you Kym.
You been disappointing the denier community ever since you failed to
produce your YouTube video, "CO2 Is Good for You."
You know, the one where you place a plastic bag over your head . . .
Bret Cahill
k...@kymhorsell.com
...
> DON'T BE FOOLED BY THESE PEDANTIC DEMONSTRATIONS. THEY AREN'T
> REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CO2 EFFECTS IN THE ENVIRONMENT. PLEASE PLEASE
> PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF BEFORE BEING SUCKERED INTO THESE STUPID
> DEMONSTRATIONS.
I'd always ask people to check things for themselves before jumping
to nice-sounding conclusions.
E.g. I've setup a simple "temperature trend" database at
http://www.kymhorsell.com/trend.html.
As you'd expect for 10 mins work it's very primitive. Type in
the name of a city in one box and/or the name of a country in
the other box, and it will show all the recording stations
that are in the database, together with a little analysis
of whether there is a warming or cooling trend.
You can easily put paid to the claim "cooling sites have been
removed from the database(s)".
You can find the overall trend of a country just by typing in
the name of the country. Some of these will take a couple of seconds --
I only have an old box running the database in case some moron tries
to hack it.
Note that some places near the equator tend to have no trend
or a cooling trend, and places near the poles tend to have a warming trend.
Last Post
> Please see the following demonstration:
>
> In California, this demonstration is junior high school general
> science. (I've watched teachers being trained to give it.) So, it
> may be over the head of the fossil fools on alt.global-warming.
It makes a whole lot of difference in beer and soda drinks
and it makes the plants grow faster ...
Photosynthesis (CO2) is vital for life on Earth.
As well as maintaining the normal level of oxygen in
the atmosphere, nearly all life either depends on it
directly as a source of energy, or indirectly as the
ultimate source of the energy in their food.
The amount of energy trapped by photosynthesis is
immense, approximately 100 terawatts: which is
about six times larger than the power consumption
of human civilization.
As well as energy, photosynthesis is also the source
of the carbon in all the organic compounds within
organisms' bodies. In all, photosynthetic organisms
convert around 100,000,000,000 tonnes of carbon
into biomass per year.
Peter Franks
> In sci.skeptic Peter Franks<no...@none.com> wrote:
> ...
>> DON'T BE FOOLED BY THESE PEDANTIC DEMONSTRATIONS. THEY AREN'T
>> REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CO2 EFFECTS IN THE ENVIRONMENT. PLEASE PLEASE
>> PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF BEFORE BEING SUCKERED INTO THESE STUPID
>> DEMONSTRATIONS.
>
> I'd always ask people to check things for themselves before jumping
> to nice-sounding conclusions.
>
> E.g. I've setup a simple "temperature trend" database at
> http://www.kymhorsell.com/trend.html.
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /trend.html on this server.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache/2.2.15 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.16 OpenSSL/0.9.8e DAV/2 Server at
kym.massbus.org Port 80
Bret Cahill
> > Please see the following demonstration:
>
> > In California, this demonstration is junior high school general
> > science. (I've watched teachers being trained to give it.) So, it
> > may be over the head of the fossil fools on alt.global-warming.
>
> It makes a whole lot of difference in beer and soda drinks
> and it makes the plants grow faster ...
>
> Photosynthesis (CO2) is vital for life on Earth.
You need to demonstrate that in your Youtube video, "CO2 Is Good for
You."
You place a plastic bag over your head and duct tape it tightly around
your neck.
Maybe your case worker can help you into your straightjacket.
Bret Cahill
nutbnocopp
"Angelo Campanella" <a.camp...@att.net> wrote in message
news:ieucge$277$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> In sci.skeptic Well Done <Well...@wellhoned.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>> Science tells us atmospheric CO2 follows temp increase.
>
> Implying that higher temperatures lead to out-gassing of ocean waters
> and increased plant like (sounds true to me).
>
>>> Science tells us man's contribution to atmo CO2 is negligible.
>
> Contribution to production... All the greenery growing all over the
> Earth pours CO2 into the atmosphere. Some hangs in the greenery.
>
>>> Science tells us Earth's temp (as best as we can measure/estimate) has
>>> been decreasing for years.
>
> Haven't seen uncorrupted data for some years... bummer.
>
>>> Science (math & logic) tells us that closing almost all temp stations
>>> that show cooling will make it look like temps are rising.
>
> Wow!.... ya think?
ABSOLUTELY!
GISS Climate Station Follies
How do they get away with this corruption of climate data?
20 Jul 2009
QUOTE: George E. Smith noted accurately that it is a "simple failure to
observe the standard laws of sampled data systems." GISS presents so many
puzzles in this area, it is difficult to know where to begin.
The GISS temperature record, with its various adjustments, estimations, and
re-estimations, has drawn my attention since I first became interested in
the methods used to measure a global temperature.
In particular, I have wondered how the current global average can even be
compared with that of 1987, which was produced using between six and seven
times more stations than today.
Commenter George E. Smith noted accurately that it is a "simple failure to
observe the standard laws of sampled data systems." GISS presents so many
puzzles in this area, it is difficult to know where to begin.
My recent post on the June, 2009 temperature found that the vast majority of
temperatures were taken from airports and urban stations.
This would cause some concern if the urban heat island (UHI) effect were not
accounted for in those stations.
GISS does attempt to filter out UHI from urban stations by using "nearby"
rural stations - "nearby" meaning anything within 1000 KM.
No attempt is made to filter UHI from airports not strictly listed as urban.
If stations from far, far away can be used to filter UHI, then it stands to
reason some stations may be used multiple times as filters for multiple
urban stations.
I thought it would be amusing to list which stations were used the most to
adjust for UHI. Fortunately, NASA prints that data in the
PApars.statn.use.GHCN.CL.1000.20 log file.
The results were as I expected - amusing.
Here are the top ten, ranked in order of the number of urban stations they
help adjust:
Usage Station Name Location From
To Note
251 BRADFORD/FAA AIRPORT PA / USA 1957 2004 Airport
249 DUBOIS/FAA AIRPORT PA / USA 1962 1994 Airport
249 ALLEGANY STATE PARK PA / USA 1924 2007 Admin Building
246 PHILIPSBURG/MID-STATE AP PA / USA 1948 1986 Airport
243 WELLSBORO 4SSE PA / USA 1880 2007 Various
Farms
243 WALES NY / USA 1931 2007
Various Homes
241 MANNINGTON 7WNW WVa / USA 1901 2007 Various Homes
241 PENN YAN 8W NY / USA 1888 1994
Various Homes
237 MILLPORT 2NW OH / USA 1893 2007 Various Farms
235 HEMLOCK NY / USA 1898 2007
Filtration Plant
Unfortunately, having three of the top four stations located at airports was
the the sort of thing I expected.
Looking a little further, it turns out all of the top 100 stations are in
either the US or Canada, and none of those 100 stations have reported data
since 2007. (By the way, #100 is itself used 147 times.) Several of the
top-100 stations have been surveyed by surfacestations.org volunteers who
have documented siting issues, such as the following:
Mohonk Lake, N.Y. (197 times) - much too close to ground, shading
issues, nearby building
Falls Village, Conn. (193 times) - near building and parking lot
Cornwall, Vt. (187 times) - near building
Northfield, Vt. (187 times) - near driveway, building
Enosburg Falls, Vt. (180 times) - adjacent to driveway, nearby
building.
Greenwood, Del. (171 times) - sited on concrete platform
Logan, Iowa (164 times) - near building, concrete slabs
Block Island, R.I. (150 times) - adjacent to parking lot and aircraft
parking area.
The current state of a rural station, however, is an insufficient criterion
for deciding to use it to adjust the history of one or more other urban
stations.
The rural station's history must be considered as well, with equipment
record and location changes being two of the most important considerations.
Take for example good 'ole Crawfordsville, which came in at #23, having been
used 219 times. As discussed here, Crawfordsville's station lives happily on
a farm, and does seem to enjoy life in the country. However, up until 16
years ago the station lived in the middle of Crawfordsville, spending over
100 years at Wabash College and at the town's power plant.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/20/and-now-the-most-influential-station-in-the-giss-record-is/
k...@kymhorsell.com
> You don't have permission to access /trend.html on this server.
Seems my ISP has something agin cox.net. I've asked to unblock
it for just my page. It might start to work in a few mins, but
you might have to convince all the caches between you and there
to forget that it previously failed.
--
$>This seems to be saying "in logic or philosphy an inverted if or circular
$>argument are no good -- but in science we have different standards".
$You're right. That's exactly what I'm saying.
-- Mike Franklin <mkfr...@msn.com>, 20 Nov 2010
nutbnocopp
"Angelo Campanella" <a.camp...@att.net> wrote in message
news:ieucge$277$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> ...
>>> Science tells us atmospheric CO2 follows temp increase.
>
> Implying that higher temperatures lead to out-gassing of ocean waters
> and increased plant like (sounds true to me).
>
>>> Science tells us man's contribution to atmo CO2 is negligible.
>
> Contribution to production... All the greenery growing all over the
> Earth pours CO2 into the atmosphere. Some hangs in the greenery.
>
>>> Science tells us Earth's temp (as best as we can measure/estimate) has
>>> been decreasing for years.
>
> Haven't seen uncorrupted data for some years... bummer.
>
>>> Science (math & logic) tells us that closing almost all temp stations
>>> that show cooling will make it look like temps are rising.
>
> Wow!.... ya think?
nutbnocopp
<k...@kymhorsell.com> wrote in message
news:4d12bb30$0$22473$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> In sci.skeptic Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
> ...
>> DON'T BE FOOLED BY THESE PEDANTIC DEMONSTRATIONS. THEY AREN'T
>> REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CO2 EFFECTS IN THE ENVIRONMENT. PLEASE PLEASE
>> PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF BEFORE BEING SUCKERED INTO THESE STUPID
>> DEMONSTRATIONS.
>
> I'd always ask people to check things for themselves before jumping
> to nice-sounding conclusions.
>
> E.g. I've setup a simple "temperature trend" database at
> http://www.kymhorsell.com/trend.html.
>
> As you'd expect for 10 mins work it's very primitive. Type in
> the name of a city in one box and/or the name of a country in
> the other box, and it will show all the recording stations
> that are in the database, together with a little analysis
> of whether there is a warming or cooling trend.
>
> You can easily put paid to the claim "cooling sites have been
> removed from the database(s)".
Check out these stations baby!
US Temperature Records And Therefore Global Records Are Unreliable
It appears that global warming is a figment of the imagination propagated by
a warming bias in the temperature measurements.
QUOTE: we found that 89 percent of the stations - nearly 9 of every 10 -
fail to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements that
stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial
heating or radiating/ reflecting heat source.
QUOTE: The conclusion is inescapable: The US temperature record is
unreliable.
The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in
temperature of 0.7º C (about 1.2º F) during the twentieth century.
Consequently, this record should not be cited as evidence of any trend in
temperature that may have occurred across the US during the past century.
QUOTE: Since the US record is thought to be "the best in the world," it
follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and
unreliable.
QUOTE: The most frequent siting issue was proximity to artificial heating or
radiative heat surfaces.
QUOTE: With only 11 percent of surveyed stations being of acceptable
quality, the raw temperature data produced by the USHCN stations are not
sufficiently accurate to use in scientific studies or as a basis for public
policy decisions. Adjustments to the data by NOAA/NCDC and NASA add
significant additional warming biases, which compound the errors present
from localized site biases.
Executive Summary
Global warming is one of the most serious issues of our times. Some experts
claim the rise in temperature during the past century was "unprecedented"
and proof that immediate action to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions
must begin.
Other experts say the warming was very modest and the case for action has
yet to be made.
The reliability of data used to document temperature trends is of great
importance in this debate. We can't know for sure if global warming is a
problem if we can't trust the data.
The official record of temperatures in the continental US comes from a
network of 1,221 climate-monitoring stations overseen by the National
Weather Service, a department of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA).
Until now, no one had ever conducted a comprehensive review of the quality
of the measurement environment of those stations.
During the past few years I recruited a team of more than 650 volunteers to
visually inspect and photographicallydocument more than 860 of these
temperature stations.
We were shocked by what we found.
We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning
units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot
rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We
found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process
of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding
areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations - nearly 9 of every 10 -
fail to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements that
stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial
heating or radiating/ reflecting heat source.
In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising
temperatures because they are badly sited.
It gets worse.
We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time
also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in
the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice
that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data
by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures
to look even higher.
The conclusion is inescapable: The US temperature record is unreliable.
The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in
temperature of 0.7º C (about 1.2º F) during the twentieth century.
Consequently, this record should not be cited as evidence of any trend in
temperature that may have occurred across the US during the past century.
Since the US record is thought to be "the best in the world," it follows
that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.
This report presents actual photos of more than 100 temperature stations in
the US, many of them demonstrating vividly the siting issues we found to be
rampant in the network. Photographs of all 865 stations that have been
surveyed so far can be found at www.surfacestations.org, where station
photos can be browsed by state or searched for by name.
1. Whitewash versus Latex
The research project described in this report was the result of pure
serendipity. It began when I set out to study the effect of paint changes on
the thermometer shelters, known as Stevenson Screens, used by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service (NOAA/NWS)
to track changes in the climate of the US
I had known for a number of years, from my early work in the 1970s with
weather instrumentation, that when the US Weather Bureau was commissioned in
1890, it used an instrument shelter designed by Thomas Stevenson
(1818-1887), a British civil engineer (and father of the author Robert Louis
Stevenson).
That wood-slatted box design included a coating of whitewash (slaked lime in
water), which was a common outdoor coating of that era. When dried, it
leaves a pure white coating of calcium carbonate on the wood surface.
Whitewash was still specified as the coating of choice for Stevenson Screens
until 1979, when the National Weather Service (NWS), now an arm of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), made a specification
change to switch the surface coating from whitewash to semigloss latex
paint.
Latex paints have significantly different infrared properties due to the
pigment, titanium dioxide, which differs from the calcium carbonate-based
whitewash.
I wondered if this change might affect the temperature readings inside the
Stevenson Screens. In the spring of 2007, having time on my hands for the
first time in years, I set off to find the answer.
I purchased three new Stevenson Screen thermometer shelters, shown in Figure
2. One is bare wood, unpainted, as a control; the middle one is painted with
latex, as sent by the supplier; and the third is painted with a historically
accurate (for early twentieth century) whitewash mixture that I obtained
(both materials and formula) from the head chemist at the National Lime
Company.
Whitewash was mixed after conferring with chemist Richard Godbey of the
Chemical Lime Company in Henderson, Nevada, and after reading a
paper he authored on the history and home creation of whitewash.1
The device on the tripod, also shown in Figure 2, is a stacked plate
infrared thermometer shield with a small fan to pull air through, called an
aspirated shield. I placed it at the same exposure height as the thermistors
(electronic temperature sensors) in the screens and used it as the air
temperature reference. Each Stevenson Screen and the air temperature
reference sensor were fitted with matched, calibrated thermistors, National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) traceable with calibration
certificates, which were connected to a calibrated data-logger, also with a
calibration certificate.
The resolution is .01º F with an accuracy of +/- 0.1º F over the range.
1. P. Mold and R. Godbey, "Limewash: Compatible Coverings for Masonry and
Stucco," International Building Lime Symposium 2005,
Orlando, Florida, March 9-11, 2005, http://www.lime.org/BLG/Mold.pdf.
This test showed that changes to the surface coatings did
make a difference in the temperatures recorded in these
standard thermometer shelters, shown in Figure 3.
I found a 0.3º F difference in maximum temperature and a 0.8º F difference
in minimum temperature between the whitewashand latex-painted screens. This
is a big difference, especially when we consider that the concern over
anthropogenic global warming was triggered by what these stations reported
was an increase of about 1.2º F over the entire twentieth century.
2. Story of Three Stations
Next, I set out to determine if the Stevenson Screens of the US network of
temperature-monitoring stations had been updated to latex paint as required
by NWS specification changes in 1979.
I discovered that a specific network of
stations existed for the purpose of climate monitoring, called the US
Historical Climatology Network (USHCN). The National Climatic Data Center
(NCDC) calls the USHCN "a high quality, moderate-sized dataset of daily and
monthly records of basic meteorological variables from over 1000 observing
stations across the 48 contiguous United States."2
This seemed like a good place to start my investigation of the whitewash
versus latex issue, particularly since there were three stations near my
town of Chico, California within easy driving distance.
I set out to check the paint on the Stevenson Screens at these locations to
see if they had indeed been converted to latex from whitewash. The first
station, at the Chico University Experiment Farm, had been converted to
latex, but it also contained a surprise.
It had two screens, one of which was converted to automated radio reporting.
I was surprised to find NWS had installed the radio electronics just inches
from the temperature sensor, inside the screen. (See Figure 4.) Surely this
station's temperature readings would be higher than the actual temperature
of ambient air outside the screen.
The next station, at Orland, California, was much better. It was well-sited
and maintained and had evidence of several coats of latex paint. It had no
electronics, just standard-issue mercury maximum and minimum
temperature-recording thermometers.
The third station, however, in Marysville, California, revealed the Chico
University station was not a fluke.
As I stood next to the temperature sensor, I could feel warm exhaust air
from the nearby cell phone tower equipment sheds blowing past me!
I realized this official thermometer was recording the temperature of a hot
zone near a large parking lot and other biasing influences including
buildings, air conditioner vents, and masonry.
I asked to see the official records kept by the fire station office, called
B91 forms, which are mailed monthly to the National Climatic Data Center.
They were woefully incomplete. The observer (the office manager) didn't work
weekends or holidays, and the B91 form for July 2007 had only 14 of 31 days
completed.
A copy of the actual form used to report appears in Figure 6.
Upon seeing the B91 form for Marysville, my first thought was back to my
college days in lab exercises, where if I were conducting an experiment and
able to complete only 45 percent of the readings, my instructor would surely
tell me to repeat the experiment until I could "do it right."
Yet here we had an official climate-monitoring station, dubbed part of the
"high quality" USHCN network that provides data for use in scientific
studies, actually measuring the temperature of a parking lot with air
conditioners blowing exhaust air on it, and missing more than half of its
data for the month of July!
I wondered if other researchers had expressed concern about the quality of
the US temperature record and found they had.
In 2003, NCDC recognized that the existing USHCN network had problems and
commissioned the new Climate Reference Network (CRN) to replace the old
USHCN network.
A report released at the time said:
The research community, government agencies, and private businesses have
identified significant shortcomings in understanding and examining long-term
climate trends and change over the US and surrounding regions. Some of these
shortcomings are due to the lack of adequate documentation of operations and
changes regarding the existing and earlier observing networks, the observing
sites, and the instrumentation over the life of the network.
These include inadequate overlapping observations when new instruments were
installed and not using wellmaintained, calibrated high-quality instruments.
These factors increase the level of uncertainty when government and business
decision-makers are considering long-range strategic policies and plans.3
University Experiment Farm. Who puts a
temperature sensor right next to heat-generating
electronics?
3. Climate Reference Network (CRN) Site Information Handbook,
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/
X030FullDocumentD0.pdf
My search also led me to Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., senior research scientist at
the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES),
University of Colorado in Boulder, and professor emeritus of the Department
of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.
Dr. Pielke had done some studies on the quality of siting and measurements
at USHCN climate-monitoring stations in Colorado and he confirmed my fears.
He too had seen blatant violations of quality control that contaminated the
temperature record.
The missing Marysville data (14 of 31 days) led me to research how missing
data was dealt with in the climate record. I learned about a data algorithm
used by NCDC called FILNET, short for Fill Missing Original Data in the
Network, that is used to "infill" missing data using interpolations of data
from surrounding stations.
After reading about it, I came to the conclusion that NCDC uses FILNET to
create "missing" data where none was ever actually. measured.
I looked up FILNET and, sure enough, missing data are created from nearby
station estimates.
According to a government report, Estimates for missing data are provided
using a procedure similar to that used in SHAP [Station History Adjustment
Program]. This adjustment uses the debiased data from the SHAP and fills in
missing original data when needed (i.e. calculates estimated data) based on
a "network" of the best correlated nearby stations.
The FILNET program also completed the data adjustment process for stations
that moved too often for SHAP to estimate the adjustments needed to debias
the data.4
I asked myself: "With potential heat biases such as temperature measurement
near parking lots, air conditioner vents, and radio equipment, plus
significant amounts of missing data being interpolated from other stations
that may also have issues, how could our national climatic dataset possibly
be accurate?"
After further discussion with Dr. Pielke, and evaluating how he had done his
study there with photography of temperature stations, and realizing the
importance of documenting the state of quality control in the US Historical
Climatology Network, I decided something needed to be done.
3. The Surface Stations Project
From my discussions with Dr. Pielke, the Surface Stations Project was born.
The concept was simple: Create a network of volunteers to visit USHCN
climate-monitoring stations and document, with photographs and site surveys,
their quality.
I worked with Dr. Pielke to encapsulate his survey methods into simple
instructions any member of the public could understand and follow. I created
a Web site, www.SurfaceStations.org, that featured an interactive online
database that would allow for the uploading of photographs and site
surveys, along with supporting data.
Since the project's inception in the Summer of 2007, more than 650 volunteer
surveyors have registered, and as of this writing in February 2009, 865 of
the 1,221 USHCN climate-monitoring stations have been surveyed, representing
more than 70 percent of the operational climate-monitoring network in the
continental United States.
To rate the quality of the station siting characteristics, we used the same
metric developed by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center to set up the
Climate Reference Network (CRN). According to Section 2.2. of the Climate
Reference Network (CRN) Site Information Handbook, "the most desirable local
surrounding landscape is a relatively large and flat open area with low
local vegetation in order that the sky view is unobstructed in all
directions except at the lower angles of altitude above the horizon."
Five classes of sites - ranging from most reliable to least - are defined:
Class 1: Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a
slope below 1/3 (less than 19º). Grass/low vegetation ground cover less than
10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial
heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and
parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative
of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading for a sun
elevation greater than 3 degrees.
Class 2: Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding
vegetation less than 25 centimeters. Artificial heating sources within 30
meters. No shading for a sun elevation greater than 5º.
Class 3: (error 1ºC) Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources
within 10 meters.
Class 4: (error greater than 2ºC) Artificial heating sources less than 10
meters.
Class 5: (error greater than 5ºC) Temperature sensor located next to/above
an artificial heating source, such as a building, roof top, parking lot, or
concrete surface.
This rating system is duplicated for the Surface Stations Project.
Distances to objects and surfaces are measured by
volunteer surveyors, and in cases where hands-on measurements are not
possible, due to the weather station being in a secured area (such as
airports) or other inaccessible area, measurements are made using aerial
survey tools such as Google Earth and other aerial mapping and measurement
systems. When the site is inaccessible and the quality of aerial photography
is poor, photographic analysis of objects of known size and length that
appear with the weather stations (such
as chain link fence segments) are used to determine distances.
Armed with these rating tools provided by NOAA, NWS, and NCDC, the Surface
Stations Project was able to quantify the quality of the operational USHCN
climate-monitoring network. Due to the open and accessible nature of the
project, having all photographs and data available online for public
viewing, the surveys are seen by dozens to hundreds of people,
who readily point out errors or concerns, such as a misidentified station.
In such cases where an error is identified, surveys are removed from the
database, and the site survey is redone when practical. Each USHCN site
rating, once applied, is seen by three different individuals, ensuring it
represents a true rating.
4. Examples of Poor Siting
The Surface Stations Project found an amazing array of siting issues in the
USHCN, many the product of poor planning during installation or lack of time
to complete a quality job of installation.
Others are almost comical in their ineptitude.
In this section we present some examples that represent the most commonly
seen issues.
Infrared photography was used to illustrate heat sources near the official
thermometer.
The most frequent siting issue was proximity to artificial heating or
radiative heat surfaces.
These nearby heat sources, such as concrete and asphalt, have been
demonstrated to heat nearby air and bias thermometer readings upwards by as
much as 7º C (12º F).5 Thermometers are often much closer than the 100
meters required for Class 1 status in the new CRN, or even the 100-foot
(30.48 meters) standard NOAA recommended for the older USHCN network.6
The four locations photographed below show instances where heat from nearby
buildings, an electric transformer, a water treatment
plant, and a sidewalk are all apparent from the infrared photos.
5. H. Yilmaz, S. Toy, M.A. Irmak, S. Yilmaz, and Y. Bulut, "Determination of
Temperature Differences between asphalt, concrete, soil and grass surfaces
in the City of Erzurum, Turkey," Atmosfera 21, #2 (2008), pp. 135-146.
6. "The sensor should be at least 100 feet from any paved or concrete
surface." NOAA's National Weather Service, Cooperative Observer
Program, "Proper Siting," http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/coop/standard.htm, last
visited February 11, 2009.
A trend illustrated by the photos above is for the newer style MMTS/Nimbus
thermometers to be installed much closer to buildings and radiative surfaces
than the older Stevenson Screens. NOAA's sensor cable specification cites a
maximum distance of 1/4 mile,7 but installers often can't get past simple
obstructions such as roads, driveways, or even some concrete walkways using
the simple hand tools (shovel, pickaxe, etc.) they are provided to trench a
cable run. The photo on the next page, of the USHCN station in Bainbridge,
Georgia, illustrates the systemic problem.
The original Stevenson Screen can be seen in the grass beyond the road, and
the new MMTS/Nimbus thermometer appears in the foreground. The new location
is just 8.9 feet from an air conditioning heat exchanger and 14.3 feet from
a heated building. Note the parking spaces near the MMTS as well. Thus, the
new station location may report higher
temperatures than the old station even if ambient temperatures remain
unchanged.
The problem illustrated by the Bainbridge, Georgia picture is widespread in
the dataset. Local National Weather Service Cooperative Observer Program
(COOP) managers lack the tools and often the time needed to install the new
cabled electronic thermometer in locations that comply with NOAA guidelines.
As a result, most MMTS/Nimbus thermometers get installed close to the
building that houses the electronic readout equipment, which is not
weatherproof.
Since these MMTS/Nimbus electronic thermometers have been gradually phased
in since their inception in the mid-1980s, the bias trend that likely
results from the thermometers being closer to buildings, asphalt, etc. would
be gradual, and likely not noticed in the data. If they had been installed
all at once, or even over the course of a year, there would be a step
function in the annual data announcing the problem.
The impact of moving a station can be dramatic. For example, Figure 16 shows
a new temperature station in Lampasas, Texas, located in a radio station's
parking lot in the very center of town, just 28 feet from US Highway 183.
Previously the station was in a residential backyard over grass. According
to the NCDC metadata database, the station was moved on October 1, 2000.
Figure 17 shows the giant step upward in temperature that coincided with the
move.
The new station is recording heat from the air conditioning unit, house,
cars, and asphalt parking lot. Shading issues mean winter temperatures are
also affected when leaves are absent.
Figure 17. Since the station was moved in October 2000, temperatures
recorded for Lampasas have soared.
Figure 16. The recently moved temperature station in Lampasas, Texas
- now in the parking lot of a downtown radio station.
Particularly troubling is the frequency with which temperature stations are
located at wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), given that WWTPs are heat
islands due to the process of waste digestion.
We found approximately 68 USHCN climate-monitoring stations located at
WWTPs.
Even in this electronic age, the requirement for a manned weather
observation continues as it has since the Weather Bureau was founded in
1890. The task of observing the thermometer readings, recording them in a
log (the B91 form), and mailing the log once a month to NCDC for
transcription to the database requires a person to be present seven days a
week. This is why fire stations, ranger stations, power plants, airports,
and even sewage treatment plants were assigned to be official weather
observers. They are always manned.
Figures 18 and 19 show a comparison of visible and infrared photography of a
WWTP located in Ontario, Oregon. The outside air temperature when this was
taken was 0º C (32º F). Note that according to the infrared camera target,
the WWTP tanks read 13.3º C (55.9º F) You can even see warm water vapor
rising off the tanks.
Surely the air near the WWTP tanks in Ontario, Oregon would be warmer than
temperatures measured 100 meters from the waste tanks. And yet, we have
official USHCN climate-monitoring thermometers mounted directly adjacent to
such tanks throughout the United States. Figures 20 and 21 show two USHCN
stations at WWTPs in Drain, Oregon and Tarboro, North Carolina.
5. Bias in Adjustments by NOAA and NASA
Changing the technology and locations of temperature stations and a blatant
disregard for NOAA's own rules about keeping sensors at least 100 feet away
from heat sources and radiative surfaces have undoubtedly contaminated the
US temperature record.
But it gets worse.
Adjustments applied to "homogenize" the data (comparing to surrounding
stations and adjusting) impart an even larger false warming trend to the
data.
For example, consider the difference between what NOAA publishes and what
NASA GISS publishes after NASA "homogenized" the Lampasas USHCN station
data, shown in Figure 22.
The revised data (shown in red) are made to appear cooler than the original
data (shown in blue) in the past, making the positive slope of the trend in
the last century even steeper.
It is not only NASA GISS that does this. NOAA adjusts temperature data also,
and despite the pervasive evidence that recent changes in technology and
location have introduced an upward bias in the temperature record over
time,8 NOAA has been making adjustments that increase the warming trend.
Figures 23 and 24 show the trend over time of all the adjustments applied to
the USHCN data.
As illustrated in the graphs below, in simplest terms, NOAA adds a positive
bias by its own "adjustment" methodology. It is important to note that
Figure 24 shows a positive adjustment of 0.5º F from 1940 to 1999. The
generally agreed-upon "global warming signal" is said to be about 1.2º F
(0.7ºC) over the last century.9
NOAA's "adjustments," in other words, account for nearly one-half of the
agreed-upon rise in temperature in the twentieth century. The same
adjustments are applied to the GHCN global temperature dataset.
Figure 22. USHCN "raw" data and NASA GISS "homogenized" data for Lampasas,
Texas. NASA's adjustments made the recent
temperature increase look even steeper. Source:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/.
8. R. McKitrick and P.J. Michaels, "A test of corrections for extraneous
signals in gridded surface temperature data," Climate Research
26 (2004), pp. 159-173; G.C. Hegerl and J.M. Wallace, "Influence of patterns
of climate variability on the difference between satellite
and surface temperature trends," Journal of Climate 15 (2002), pp.
2412-2428.
9. National Climatic Data Center, "Global Warming -- Frequently Asked
Questions," "Item 3: Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74º
C (plus or minus 0.18º C) since the late-19th century."
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html.
Figure 23. NOAA's adjustments to raw temperature data have generally been to
increase, not decrease, recent temperatures.
Source:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ndp019.html.
Figure 24. The net effect of NOAA's adjustments is to increase the rise in
temperature since 1900 by 0.5º F. Source: http://cdiac.ornl.
gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ndp019.html.
6. Findings
Volunteers for the Surface Stations Project have surveyed 865 stations, more
than 70 percent of the USHCN's 1,221-station network, as of this writing.
I have personally visited more than 100 stations in the states of
California, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington.
I believe it is possible to draw factual conclusions about the state of the
USHCN climate-monitoring network.
Figures 25 and 26 show locations of USHCN surface stations and those that
have been surveyed and rated by the Surface Stations Project. The images
make it dramatically clear that our sample is comprehensive and
representative. They also show that high- and low-quality stations are
well-distributed around the country.
Figure 25. Map of all USHCN surface stations in the US
Figure 26. Map of USHCN surface stations in the US surveyed and given a
quality rating by the Surface Stations Project.
Each station has been assigned a CRN rating based on the quality rating
system provided by NOAA. We found only 3 percent of the stations surveyed
meet the requirements of Class 1, while an additional 8 percent meet the
requirements of Class 2. Stations that don't qualify as Class 1 or 2 have
artificial heating sources closer than 10 meters to the thermometer, a far
cry from the gold standard of 100 meters.
This means 89 percent - nearly 9 of 10 - of the stations surveyed produce
unreliable data by NOAA's own definition.
Twenty percent of stations were rated as Class 3, 58 percent as Class 4, and
11 percent as Class 5. Recall that a Class 3 station has an expected error
greater than 1ºC, Class 4 stations have an expected error greater than 2ºC,
and Class 5 stations have an expected error greater than 5ºC.
These are enormous error ranges in light of the fact that climate change
during the entire twentieth century is estimated to have been only 0.7º C.
In other words, the reported increase in temperature during the twentieth
century falls well within the margin of error for the instrument record.
This project has shown that the vast majority of the temperature stations in
the USHCN network have proximity to biasing elements that make them
unreliable.
Figure 27 offers a visual representation of how low-quality stations greatly
outnumber high-quality stations.
The USHCN has stations in venues that are incompatible with continuous
quality of measurements due to localized operational factors that likely
impart a warm bias to measurements due to waste heat from industrial,
government, and business processes. Examples include:
Prior to the Surface Stations Project, the weather stations that produced
data for inclusion into the USHCN dataset had never been subject to a
network-wide site quality assessment. The placement, maintenance, and
calibration of each site is left up to the COOP manager at local National
Weather Service Forecast Offices (NWSFO). The gradual introduction of
the MMTS/Nimbus electronic thermometers since their inception in the
mid-1980s has likely introduced a slow and likely undetectable warming bias
due to thermometers being moved closer to buildings, asphalt, concrete, and
other man-made influences as they were upgraded.
Figure 27. Most of the surveyed temperature stations in the US fall into
categories that mean they are unreliable. Only stations in CRN=1 and CRN=2 -
11 percent of all stations - are reliable.
. Small and large city airports
. Industrial/factory complexes
. Fire and Ranger stations
. Electrical substations
. City water purification plants
. City wastewater treatment plants
7. Policy Implications and Recommendations
This report reveals a serious deterioration in the reliability of the US
temperature record due to siting decisions that violate NOAA's own rules.
With only 11 percent of surveyed stations being of acceptable quality, the
raw temperature data produced by the USHCN stations are not sufficiently
accurate to use in scientific studies or as a basis for public policy
decisions. Adjustments to the data by NOAA/NCDC and NASA add significant
additional warming biases, which compound the errors present from localized
site biases.
With 89 percent of the stations in the USHCN network having been shown not
to meet NOAA's own criteria, the use of data from adjacent stations to
infill, adjust, or homogenize data likely results in a greater distribution
of error through the network.
These findings have significant implications for the scientific and
policymaking communities in the US and around the world.
The USHCN data are widely used and cited by many major scientific centers
for climate analysis.
These include but are not limited to:
. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) managed by Dr. James
Hansen
. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) at Oak Ridge Laboratory
. Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK managed by Dr. Phil Jones
. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) managed by Mr. Thomas Karl
. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a joint project of the
World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program
The findings and recommendations of these highly respected and influential
scientific and political organizations are now
in doubt.
The data currently used to claim that the twentieth century witnessed a
statistically significant warming trend are unreliable. The truth of that
claim can be established only with new and more-reliable data. Since the US
temperature record is widely regarded as being the most reliable of the
international databases, it follows that data used to estimate the change in
global temperatures over the past century must also be revisited.
These findings lead me to make the following suggestions to NOAA/NCDC:
. An independently managed and comprehensive quality-control program should
be implemented by NOAA/NWS to determine the best stations in the network.
. A pristine dataset should be produced from the best stations and then
compared to the remainder of the USHCN network to quantify the total
magnitude of bias.
. Users of the current USHCN data should be advised of the quality-control
issues so that they may reexamine results derived from such data.
. NOAA should undertake a comprehensive effort to improve the siting of the
stations and correct the temperature record for contamination that has been
observed to occur during the past two decades.
On the following pages are examples of stations around the country, in
alphabetical order by city name, with descriptions of their siting
conditions,
and temperature charts.
The USHCN station temperature graphs were provided by NASA Goddard Institute
for Space Studies (GISS).
Amherst, Mass., sited on gravel bed near driveway.
Ardmore, Okla., between city hall and sidewalk, main street.
Ashland, Ore., patch of green, sea of gray.
Blacksburg, Va., nearby concrete platforms, satellite dish.
Block Island, R.I., adjacent to parking lot and aircraft parking area.
Brinkley, Ark., nearby building with 3 air blowers, dirt mound, raw sewage.
Atchison, Kan., near corner of large stone buildings.
Baltimore, Md., sited on red platform on city rooftop.
Bartow, Fla., nearby building, road, parking lot.
Brookville, Ind., nearby driveway, building. Buffalo Bill Dam, Wyo., sited
on concrete, between two buildings.
Bunkie, La., too close to sidewalk and building.
Cornwall, Vt., nearby building. Crosby, N.D., nearby building, patio.
Dayton, Wash. Water plant, over cinder rock, near vents, buildings.
Champion, Mich., nearby road, parking area, house.
Clarksville, Tenn., surrounded by sewage plant and parking lot.
Conway, S.C., near large asphalt area, building.
Detroit Lakes, Minn., nearby air-conditioning unit, building, gas tank.
Dillon, Mont., tanks, building, sited on concrete border of sidewalk.
Durham, N.H., nearby building, parking lot.
Fort Scott, Kan., overwhelmed by large paved area, nearby building.
Fort Morgan, Colo., huge industrial building, parking lot.
Gainesville, Ga., between two driveways.
Ennis, Mont., nearby building, trailer, assorted junk.
Enosburg Falls, Vt., adjacent to driveway, nearby building.
Falls Village, Conn., nearby building and parking lot.
Grace, Idaho, industrial nightmare. Greenville, Texas, nearby building,
satellite dish, two air-conditioning units.
Greenwood, Del., sited on concrete platform.
Hendersonville, N.C., nearby parking lot, satellite dish, building.
Heppner, Ore., sea of crushed rock, city disposal plant.
Hillsdale, Mich., near large paved area.
Gunnison, Colo., nearby parking lot. Haskell, Texas, between road and
parking lot, nearby building.
Hay Springs, Neb., next to building, narrow sidewalk, telephone pole.
Hopkinsville, Ky., adjacent building, driveway, accumulated junk, BBQ.
Hot Springs, S.D., partially obscured by foliage.
Kennebec, S.D., sited on gravel path, nearby shed.
Lexington, Va., sewage plant, near building, sidewalks, road, parking lot.
Logan, Iowa, nearby building, concrete slabs.
Lovelock, Nev., nearby building, U-Haul unit.
Lampasas, Texas, next to sidewalk, near satellite dish, road, parking lot,
building.
Lebanon, Mo., nearby building. Lenoir, N.C., nearby sidewalk, road,
building.
Marengo, Ill., nearby buildings, parking lot. Miami, Ariz., sited on gravel,
next to building.
Midland, Mich., next to vent at wastewater treatment plant.
Morrison, Ill., sited on concrete, between open wastewater tanks.
Mount Vernon, Ind., nearby road, building, ironwork.
Napoleon, Ohio, over concrete, wastewater tank.
Milwaukee, Wis., nearby road. Mohonk Lake, N.Y., much too close to
ground, shading issues, nearby building.
Monticello, Miss., between two buildings, nearby sidewalk.
Neosho, Mo., nearby driveway and house. Northfield, Vt., nearby driveway,
building. Okemah, Okla., sited on edge of driveway, nearby street.
Paris, Ill., adjacent rooftop. Paso Robles, Calif., sited on concrete slab
next to sidewalk, nearby road.
Pocahontas, Ark., fairly well sited. (Note cooling trend.)
Orangeburg, S.C., nearby metal coverings, parking lot, building.
Orono, Maine, sited on roof of large building with parking lot.
Panguitch, Utah, former location (screen removed) on concrete, by parking
lot.
Racine, Wis., between building and road. Red Cloud, Neb., on premises of
city power plant. Nearby wall, structures.
Richardton Abbey, N.D., at edge of sidewalk, nearby road, building.
Santa Rosa, N.M., exposed cabling, nearby metal boats, burn barrel, junk.
Searchlight, Nev., in Department of Transportation parking lot, heavy
equipment.
Spanish Fork, Utah, sited on gravel, near concrete wall.
Rock Rapids, Iowa, nearby building, sidewalk, driveway.
Salisbury, Md., nearby building, airconditioning unit.
Sandpoint, Idaho, heavy gravel base.
Spooner, Wis., nearby road and building. St. George, Utah, between building
and raised parking lot, car radiator level.
St. Joseph, La., well-sited station. (Note temperature trend.)
Tifton, Ga., nearby air-conditioning units, sidewalk, road.
Titusville, Fla., mounted near sewage digester, near air-conditioning unit,
generator.
Troy, Ala., nearby parking lot, satellite dish, assorted junk.
State College, Pa., nearby concrete path, building.
Staunton, Va., sewage plant, between tank wall and paved road.
Thompson, Utah, nonstandard equipment, over asphalt, nearby building.
Troy, N.Y., nearby parking lot, sidewalk, building.
Tuckerton, N.J., unshielded sensor attached to building.
Tucson, Ariz., sited on concrete in a parking lot.
Uniontown, Pa., nearby building, road, parking areas.
Urbana, Ohio, at sewage plant, multiple violations (see labels).
Vale, Ore., next to road, screen facing wrong direction.
Tularosa, N.M., at edge of gravel road. Tullahoma, Tenn., sewage plant,
electrical transformer, cement path.
Union Springs, Ala., nearby building.
Waterville, Wash., adjacent to sidewalk, parking lots.
West Point, N.Y., sited on edge of paved path, nearby stone building.
Wickenburg, Ariz., adjacent building, parking lot, accumulated junk.
Woodville, Miss., nearby building. Worland, Wyo., nearby sidewalk, brick
mounting, gravel at base, outbuilding.
Yreka, Calif., sited on cinder rock, nearby concrete driveway, parking lot.
Williamsburg, Ky., next to building (note the adjacent exhaust vent).
Winfield, W. Va., up on the roof. Winnebago, Minn., nearby sewage tanks.
The stakes in the debate over global warming are high. If human activities
are causing a major warming of the earth's atmosphere, then actions to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions costing hundreds of billions of dollars
would be necessary.
But how do we know if global warming is a problem if we can't trust the
temperature record?
This report, by meteorologist Anthony Watts, presents the results of the
first-ever comprehensive review of the quality of data coming from the
National Weather Service's network of temperature stations.
Watts and a team of volunteers visually inspected and took pictures of more
than 850 of these stations. What they found will shock you:
We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning
units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot
rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We
found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process
of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding
areas.
In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations - nearly 9 of every 10 -
fail to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements that
stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial
heating or reflecting source.
The conclusion is inescapable:
The US temperature record is unreliable.
And since the US record is thought to be "the best in the world," it follows
that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable.
http://www.heartland.org/books/PDFs/SurfaceStations.pdf
nutbnocopp
> ...
>> DON'T BE FOOLED BY THESE PEDANTIC DEMONSTRATIONS. THEY AREN'T
>> REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CO2 EFFECTS IN THE ENVIRONMENT. PLEASE PLEASE
>> PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF BEFORE BEING SUCKERED INTO THESE STUPID
>> DEMONSTRATIONS.
>
> I'd always ask people to check things for themselves before jumping
> to nice-sounding conclusions.
>
> E.g. I've setup a simple "temperature trend" database at
> http://www.kymhorsell.com/trend.html.
>
> As you'd expect for 10 mins work it's very primitive. Type in
> the name of a city in one box and/or the name of a country in
> the other box, and it will show all the recording stations
> that are in the database, together with a little analysis
> of whether there is a warming or cooling trend.
>
> You can easily put paid to the claim "cooling sites have been
> removed from the database(s)".
Check out these stations baby!
US Temperature Records And Therefore Global Records Are Unreliable
It appears that global warming is a figment of the imagination propagated by
a warming bias in the temperature measurements.
QUOTE: we found that 89 percent of the stations - nearly 9 of every 10 -
fail to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements that
stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial
heating or radiating/ reflecting heat source.
QUOTE: The conclusion is inescapable: The US temperature record is
unreliable.
The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in
temperature of 0.7� C (about 1.2� F) during the twentieth century.
Executive Summary
It gets worse.
temperature of 0.7� C (about 1.2� F) during the twentieth century.
1. Whitewash versus Latex
The resolution is .01� F with an accuracy of +/- 0.1� F over the range.
1. P. Mold and R. Godbey, "Limewash: Compatible Coverings for Masonry and
Stucco," International Building Lime Symposium 2005,
Orlando, Florida, March 9-11, 2005, http://www.lime.org/BLG/Mold.pdf.
This test showed that changes to the surface coatings did
make a difference in the temperatures recorded in these
standard thermometer shelters, shown in Figure 3.
I found a 0.3� F difference in maximum temperature and a 0.8� F difference
in minimum temperature between the whitewashand latex-painted screens. This
is a big difference, especially when we consider that the concern over
anthropogenic global warming was triggered by what these stations reported
was an increase of about 1.2� F over the entire twentieth century.
electronics?
X030FullDocumentD0.pdf
slope below 1/3 (less than 19�). Grass/low vegetation ground cover less than
10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial
heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and
parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative
of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading for a sun
elevation greater than 3 degrees.
Class 2: Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding
vegetation less than 25 centimeters. Artificial heating sources within 30
meters. No shading for a sun elevation greater than 5�.
Class 3: (error 1�C) Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources
within 10 meters.
Class 4: (error greater than 2�C) Artificial heating sources less than 10
meters.
Class 5: (error greater than 5�C) Temperature sensor located next to/above
much as 7� C (12� F).5 Thermometers are often much closer than the 100
taken was 0� C (32� F). Note that according to the infrared camera target,
the WWTP tanks read 13.3� C (55.9� F) You can even see warm water vapor
rising off the tanks.
But it gets worse.
Figure 24 shows a positive adjustment of 0.5� F from 1940 to 1999. The
generally agreed-upon "global warming signal" is said to be about 1.2� F
(0.7�C) over the last century.9
NOAA's "adjustments," in other words, account for nearly one-half of the
agreed-upon rise in temperature in the twentieth century. The same
adjustments are applied to the GHCN global temperature dataset.
Figure 22. USHCN "raw" data and NASA GISS "homogenized" data for Lampasas,
Texas. NASA's adjustments made the recent
temperature increase look even steeper. Source:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/.
8. R. McKitrick and P.J. Michaels, "A test of corrections for extraneous
signals in gridded surface temperature data," Climate Research
26 (2004), pp. 159-173; G.C. Hegerl and J.M. Wallace, "Influence of patterns
of climate variability on the difference between satellite
and surface temperature trends," Journal of Climate 15 (2002), pp.
2412-2428.
9. National Climatic Data Center, "Global Warming -- Frequently Asked
Questions," "Item 3: Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74�
C (plus or minus 0.18� C) since the late-19th century."
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html.
Figure 23. NOAA's adjustments to raw temperature data have generally been to
increase, not decrease, recent temperatures.
Source:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ndp019.html.
Figure 24. The net effect of NOAA's adjustments is to increase the rise in
temperature since 1900 by 0.5� F. Source: http://cdiac.ornl.
gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ndp019.html.
6. Findings
greater than 1�C, Class 4 stations have an expected error greater than 2�C,
and Class 5 stations have an expected error greater than 5�C.
These are enormous error ranges in light of the fact that climate change
during the entire twentieth century is estimated to have been only 0.7� C.
Well Done
A tiny percentage of a gas that is reponsible for a tiny percentage of
the greenhouse effect is the very definition of negligable.
Another definition would be a picture of you.
NOPE, Roger, statistical significance is neither here nor there, temps
have been falling since 1998. There is NO scientific finding that in
any way supports the "man is doing it" theory hat can stand up to
actual, independent peer review. That is why the darlings at the CRU
were so determined to control the very process of peer review.
Well Done
>
> The last ice age ended about 116,500 years ago.
> The interglacial period ended about 1,500 years ago
> The past 1,500 years has been the down slope to
> the next ice age. Granted the slope has been uneven,
> with a number of periods like the Mediaeval Warm
> Period and the "Little Ice Age". But the past 150 years
> has been generally in a down trend.
>
<Bret_E...@yahoo.com>, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com>,
and many other newsgroup pollutants NEED to read and understand this
posting by "last post". I assure you, they won't.
>
>* Tyndall was the first to correctly measure the
> infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen,
> oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone,
> methane, etc. He concluded that water vapour is
> the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the
> atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air
> temperature. Absorption by the bulk of the other
> gases is negligible.
>
>Absorption_by_the_bulk_of_the_other_gases_is_negligible.
>
> Every indication points to reglaciation commencing
> some time after 2020 but not later than 2050.
> There will be hot days in the usual hot spots and
> cold and blizzard in the snow belts. There will be a
> lot of extremes so prepare for lots of hots and colds,
> batten the hatches, store backup fuel. The ice will
> not appear in the 50th parallel before 5-10,000 yrs.
>
tunderbar
> How can a small amount of CO2 make such a large difference?
> Please see the following demonstration:
>
>
> In California, this demonstration is junior high school general
> science. (I've watched teachers being trained to give it.) So, it
> may be over the head of the fossil fools on alt.global-warming.
Idiot. Ink is not CO2 and water is not the fucking atmosphere.
And manmade CO2 is no more than 12 ppm.
You guys are just too fucking stupid.
Truman Kaputt
>>> How can a small amount of CO2 make such a large difference?
>>> Please see the following demonstration:
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
>>
>>> In California, this demonstration is junior high school general
>>> science. (I've watched teachers being trained to give it.) So, it
>>> may be over the head of the fossil fools on alt.global-warming.
>
> . . .
>
>> 1) Ink is not CO2.
>
> When it comes to trapping electromagnetic radiation and converting it
No kidding...
gordo
>Roger Coppock <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
>>How can a small amount of CO2 make such a large difference?
>>
>It can't Roger, ya fearless furry freakshow.
>
>What's really fascinating about AGW true believers is that they do
>indeed know about science, yet they choose to ignore it and go with
>the appalling nonsense being seeded by those whose funding depends on
>the theory of AGW "winning".
>
>Roger:
>Science tells us atmospheric CO2 follows temp increase.
>Science tells us man's contribution to atmo CO2 is negligable.
The amounts of CO2 have been published repeatedly so why lie?
>Science tells us Earth's temp (as best as we can measure/estimate) has
>been decreasing for years.
This is another lie.I hope Dawlish is still keeping track
>Science (math & logic) tells us that closing almost all temp stations
>that show cooling will make it look like temps are rising.
So what is that dumb ass statement proving?All the stations and
satellites are reporting.
>Science (computer) tells us that it's easy to write a program that
>ignores data outside prescribed parameters and substitutes its own
>coded data.
So what.This is not how science is done.
>Honor, common sense, and concern for others tells us that's the WRONG
>thing to do.
>
>Having said that, I can only conclude that AGW proponents lack
>scientific knowledge, honor, common sense, and any concept of right
>and wrong.
Common sense and concern for others should make you write a scientific
paper and have it peer reviewed and published.Common sense also tells
me that you are not a scientist so you cannot write a scientific paper
on anything.Your mind is all messed up and the cure is to stop
watching fox news and start reading the science that is published in
peer reviewed papers from scientific journals.
Desertphile
<rcop...@adnc.com> wrote:
> How can a small amount of CO2 make such a large difference?
> Please see the following demonstration:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
>
> In California, this demonstration is junior high school general
> science. (I've watched teachers being trained to give it.) So, it
> may be over the head of the fossil fools on alt.global-warming.
I haven't seen the video yet (my computer is fucked).
In high school we used glass jars and a heat lamp to show the
effects of CO2 in trapping heat. That was what... 30+ years ago.
The paranoid whackjobs insist CO2 doesn't do what even high school
students observe happening.....
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<tdco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 6:51 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
> > How can a small amount of CO2 make such a large difference?
> > Please see the following demonstration:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
> >
> > In California, this demonstration is junior high school general
> > science. (I've watched teachers being trained to give it.) So, it
> > may be over the head of the fossil fools on alt.global-warming.
> Idiot. Ink is not CO2 and water is not the fucking atmosphere.
Golly, so a high school class experiment was too hard for you to
follow. LOL! You poor stupid bastard.
> And manmade CO2 is no more than 12 ppm.
Yeah, except for the other 5.8 12ppms we have added. LOL!
> You guys are just too fucking stupid.
Dawlish
> On Dec 22, 7:51 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>
> > How can a small amount of CO2 make such a large difference?
> > Please see the following demonstration:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
>
> > In California, this demonstration is junior high school general
> > science. (I've watched teachers being trained to give it.) So, it
> > may be over the head of the fossil fools on alt.global-warming.
>
> though I used it with science references.
>
> "Sorry, I don't consider youtube science, but now I know what you
> mean when you say you study science -- you watch youtube."
> - erschroedinger
>
> "Youtube is not science. Sorry to have to break that to you."
> - erschroedinger
>
> (from the thread Glacier loss recently May 21, 4:01 p.m.)
>
> However, it appears that Alarmists can use You Tube all they want
> as a reference.
>
> Alarmist mantra: "Do as we say ! Not as we do ! "
OK. Try this:
http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/meetings/2009summercoll/Barnet2_InfraRadTran.pdf
Please read it, then you'll realise that the scientists who designed
the curriculum for the california youngsters would have read and
completely understood science like this.
Of course, you could now try to say that NASA and their physics people
aren't science, as you people actually do from time to time, but
people just laugh when you say something like that.
Well Done
>On Dec 22, 6:51 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
>> How can a small amount of CO2 make such a large difference?
>> Please see the following demonstration:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
>
>And manmade CO2 is no more than 12 ppm.
>You guys are just too fucking stupid.
>
Others on this forum have got me realizing that Roger and ilk can't
possibly believe they speak from the point of view of objective
science. Science tells us AGW is a complete scam.
Yet here we see a very misleading experiment done before young people
that pretends to simulate man's CO2 in the atmosphere.
This is a much deeper plan of action than mere bureaucrat-led
manipulation of data. MUCH deeper. The prof doing this demo MUST
know it's a load of baloney. What is the real truth behind these
far-reaching acts of deception? I don't think the word conspiracy
nearly covers it.
Max
"Angelo Campanella" <a.camp...@att.net> wrote in message
news:ieucge$277$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
Actually, since short-wave (light) does not significantly interact at these
wavelengths, the process of emission from CO2 'insulation' goes on 24/7.
> This interaction adds more heat conductivity into the air. So, if we want
> to call the atmosphere a "blanket" and if we want to ascribe the power of
> the "Greenhouse Effect" to that upper atmosphere, we are faced with the
> reality that any atmosphere that is loaded with more CO2 will become a
> worse blanket, ergo said extra CO2 will make the climate COOLER, which is
> what I think I see from time to time, and I have noted to some colleagues
> for many years. Where are the calculations?
When more CO2 enters the atmosphere, the altitude from which each wavelength
radiates to space will of course increase.
Since convection will always assure that the lapse rate is sustained, higher
altitudes will generally be colder.
So the temperature at which CO2 radiates to space will decrease if CO2
concentration increases.
This means that the Eath as a whole we reduce it's space-bound radiation if
CO2 increase, which effectively makes CO2 a better blanket.
To quantify this effect, you need to run MODTRAN or some other radiative
transfer theory based program, which shows something like this for the
space-bound IR spectrum :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png
Doubling CO2 will cause close to 3.4 W/m^2 in DECREASED radiation, and thus
will cause GHG forcing to the same amount.
In effect CO2 increase will make the climate WARMER, not colder as you
suggest.
>
> The politicians have accepted the opposite (hot) of truth (cold), dupes
> as they are, especially the Democrats!
The scientists have accepted the notion of global warming caused by CO2
emissions, the physics of which explained above.
Some politicians do not accept this science, and call global warming a
"hoax".
>
> Not the first time.
>
> I, for one, am simply ignoring all the climate hoopla. I can't
> stop the politicians from swallowing it hook like and sinker, but I urge
> all of you to do the same as I do: Place zero value in all your climate
> related decisions and pleas. The sky is not falling .
>
> Ange
Nobody claims the sky is falling. At least no scientist does. There as grave
concerns about what will actually happen exactly after such a warming trend
is created by our CO2 emissions, but "the sky is falling" is not one of
these concerns.
The basic physics of radiative transfer in a atmosphere with a lapse rate
enforced by convection are very clear. CO2 causes global warming (and not
cooling as you suggest). There is no question about that.
Max
k...@kymhorsell.com
...
> When more CO2 enters the atmosphere, the altitude from which each wavelength
> radiates to space will of course increase.
> Since convection will always assure that the lapse rate is sustained, higher
> altitudes will generally be colder.
For which there has been observational evidence for some time.
E.g.:
col 3 from ftp://wind.atmos.uah.edu/msu/t4/t4glhmam.c1
(raw) monthly means of lower strat temp
Jan 79 to Jun 98, incl
*** THIS MAY BE AN OLD & DEFUNCT LINK -- SEE A WAYBACK MACHINE
IF YOU WANT IT
150 (64.1%) points > 1 \sigma
73 (31.2%) points > 2 \sigma (discarded)
y = -0.00394617*x + 0.477927
sdx 113.475
rss 2.53353
se 0.104727
r -0.269169
limits for beta at 90.0% CI
tc = 1.65148 at 231 d.f.
beta in -0.00394617 +- 0.00152417 = [-0.00547034, -0.002422]
T-tests on beta:
H0 beta == 0.000000 against H1 beta != 0.000000
calculated t = -4.27579 at 231 d.f.
|t| > tc (1.65148 2-sided); reject H0
H0 beta == 0.000000 against H1 beta < 0.000000
t < tc (-1.28523 left tail); reject H0
Probabilities:
P(beta!=0.000000) = 0.999972
P(beta<0.000000) = 0.999986
limits for alpha at 90.0% CI
tc = 1.65148 at 231 d.f.
alpha in 0.477927 +- 0.0241576 = [0.453769, 0.502084]
r2 = 0.0733402
calculated Spearman corr = -0.839846
Testing:
H0: vars are independent
|r| > rc (0.432000 2-sided) at 1%; reject H0
Durbin-Watson d = 0.199187
d < dL (1.667125): Positive auto-corr at 5%
estimated rho = 0.895315
Discussion:
The dataset shows an approx .3 C per century cooling of the stratosphere.
The TS regression finds serial corr and corrects for this.
(Thereby significantly reducing the estimated cooling value).
Both the T-test and Spearman show the result is signficant >95%.
The model of a simple cooling trend "explains" about 7% of the
month-to-month variations in strat temp.
DATASET:
tag x y yp
strat 0 0.714 0.477927*
strat 1 0.557 0.47398
strat 2 0.748 0.470034*
strat 3 0.759 0.466088*
strat 4 0.656 0.462142
strat 5 0.424 0.458196
strat 6 0.241 0.45425*
strat 7 0.279 0.450303
strat 8 0.352 0.446357
strat 9 0.415 0.442411
strat 10 0.453 0.438465
strat 11 0.503 0.434519
strat 12 0.534 0.430573
strat 13 0.551 0.426626
strat 14 0.408 0.42268
strat 15 0.216 0.418734
strat 16 0.221 0.414788
strat 17 0.305 0.410842
strat 18 0.415 0.406896
strat 19 0.418 0.402949
strat 20 0.537 0.399003
strat 21 0.601 0.395057
strat 22 0.597 0.391111
strat 23 0.554 0.387165
strat 24 0.515 0.383219
strat 25 0.542 0.379272
strat 26 0.51 0.375326
strat 27 0.45 0.37138
strat 28 0.293 0.367434
strat 29 0.225 0.363488
strat 30 0.18 0.359542
strat 31 0.275 0.355595
strat 32 0.399 0.351649
strat 33 0.515 0.347703
strat 34 0.544 0.343757
strat 35 0.44 0.339811
strat 36 0.446 0.335865
strat 37 0.64 0.331918*
strat 38 0.774 0.327972*
strat 39 0.68 0.324026*
strat 40 0.706 0.32008*
strat 41 0.811 0.316134*
strat 42 0.886 0.312188*
strat 43 1.023 0.308241*
strat 51 0.959 0.276672*
strat 52 0.729 0.272726*
strat 53 0.571 0.26878*
strat 54 0.503 0.264834*
strat 55 0.633 0.260887*
strat 56 0.804 0.256941*
strat 57 0.904 0.252995*
strat 58 0.803 0.249049*
strat 59 0.647 0.245103*
strat 60 0.508 0.241157*
strat 61 0.421 0.23721
strat 62 0.198 0.233264
strat 63 0.13 0.229318
strat 64 0.12 0.225372
strat 65 0.01 0.221426*
strat 66 0.009 0.217479
strat 67 0.085 0.213533
strat 68 0.194 0.209587
strat 69 0.223 0.205641
strat 70 0.319 0.201695
strat 71 0.216 0.197749
strat 72 -0.09 0.193802*
strat 73 -0.213 0.189856*
strat 74 -0.194 0.18591*
strat 75 -0.19 0.181964*
strat 76 -0.113 0.178018*
strat 77 -0.041 0.174072*
strat 78 -0.02 0.170125
strat 79 0.058 0.166179
strat 80 0.12 0.162233
strat 81 0.055 0.158287
strat 82 -0.121 0.154341*
strat 83 -0.12 0.150395*
strat 84 -0.112 0.146448*
strat 85 0.028 0.142502
strat 86 0.06 0.138556
strat 87 -0.019 0.13461
strat 88 -0.053 0.130664
strat 89 -0.083 0.126718*
strat 90 -0.065 0.122771
strat 91 -0.143 0.118825*
strat 92 -0.164 0.114879*
strat 93 -0.078 0.110933
strat 94 -0.099 0.106987
strat 95 0.043 0.103041
strat 96 -0.075 0.0990945
strat 97 -0.243 0.0951483*
strat 98 -0.177 0.0912021*
strat 99 -0.02 0.087256
strat 100 0.024 0.0833098
strat 101 -0.032 0.0793636
strat 102 0.03 0.0754174
strat 103 -0.02 0.0714713
strat 104 -0.057 0.0675251
strat 105 -0.155 0.0635789*
strat 106 -0.154 0.0596328*
strat 107 -0.303 0.0556866*
strat 108 -0.242 0.0517404*
strat 109 -0.125 0.0477943
strat 110 -0.091 0.0438481
strat 111 -0.159 0.0399019
strat 112 -0.158 0.0359558
strat 113 -0.024 0.0320096
strat 114 -0.017 0.0280634
strat 115 -0.015 0.0241173
strat 116 -0.034 0.0201711
strat 117 0.036 0.0162249
strat 118 0.095 0.0122787
strat 119 0.1010.00833258
strat 120 0.1520.00438643
strat 121 0.1540.00044024
strat 122 0.083-0.00350592
strat 123 0.087-0.0074521
strat 124 0.107-0.0113983
strat 125 0.079-0.0153444
strat 126 0.018-0.0192906
strat 127 0.01-0.0232368
strat 128 0-0.0271829
strat 129 0.018-0.0311291
strat 130 -0.061-0.0350752
strat 131 0.004-0.0390214
strat 132 -0.051-0.0429676
strat 133 -0.062-0.0469138
strat 134 0.131-0.0508599
strat 135 0.188-0.0548061*
strat 136 0.088-0.0587523
strat 137 0.074-0.0626984
strat 138 0.042-0.0666446
strat 139 0.043-0.0705908
strat 140 -0.049 -0.074537
strat 141 -0.097-0.0784831
strat 142 0.005-0.0824293
strat 143 0.054-0.0863755
strat 144 -0.188-0.0903217
strat 145 -0.283-0.0942678
strat 146 0.019 -0.098214
strat 147 0.045 -0.10216
strat 148 -0.009 -0.106106
strat 149 0.049 -0.110052
strat 150 0.491 -0.113999*
strat 167 0.72 -0.181084*
strat 168 0.574 -0.18503*
strat 169 0.507 -0.188976*
strat 170 0.351 -0.192922*
strat 171 0.141 -0.196868*
strat 172 -0.025 -0.200814
strat 173 -0.116 -0.20476
strat 174 -0.121 -0.208707
strat 175 -0.158 -0.212653
strat 176 -0.21 -0.216599
strat 177 -0.256 -0.220545
strat 178 -0.352 -0.224491
strat 179 -0.381 -0.228438
strat 180 -0.43 -0.232384
strat 181 -0.299 -0.23633
strat 182 -0.085 -0.240276
strat 183 -0.079 -0.244222
strat 184 -0.132 -0.248168
strat 185 -0.156 -0.252115
strat 186 -0.171 -0.256061
strat 187 -0.102 -0.260007
strat 188 -0.231 -0.263953
strat 189 -0.231 -0.267899
strat 189 -0.371 -0.267899
strat 190 -0.467 -0.271845
strat 191 -0.467 -0.275792
strat 191 -0.378 -0.275792
strat 192 -0.353 -0.279738
strat 193 -0.353 -0.283684
strat 193 -0.268 -0.283684
strat 194 -0.193 -0.28763
strat 195 -0.193 -0.291576
strat 195 -0.343 -0.291576
strat 196 -0.351 -0.295522
strat 197 -0.351 -0.299469
strat 197 -0.398 -0.299469
strat 198 -0.404 -0.303415
strat 199 -0.404 -0.307361
strat 199 -0.356 -0.307361
strat 200 -0.536 -0.311307*
strat 201 -0.536 -0.315253*
strat 201 -0.564 -0.315253*
strat 202 -0.545 -0.319199*
strat 203 -0.545 -0.323146*
strat 203 -0.581 -0.323146*
strat 204 -0.708 -0.327092*
strat 205 -0.708 -0.331038*
strat 205 -0.585 -0.331038*
strat 206 -0.524 -0.334984
strat 207 -0.524 -0.33893
strat 207 -0.46 -0.33893
strat 208 -0.366 -0.342876
strat 209 -0.366 -0.346823
strat 209 -0.449 -0.346823
strat 210 -0.455 -0.350769
strat 211 -0.455 -0.354715
strat 211 -0.464 -0.354715
strat 212 -0.765 -0.358661*
strat 213 -0.765 -0.362607*
strat 213 -0.714 -0.362607*
strat 214 -0.59 -0.366553*
strat 215 -0.59 -0.3705*
strat 215 -0.634 -0.3705*
strat 216 -0.706 -0.374446*
strat 217 -0.706 -0.378392*
strat 217 -0.557 -0.378392
strat 218 -0.296 -0.382338
strat 219 -0.296 -0.386284
strat 219 -0.232 -0.386284
strat 220 -0.27 -0.39023
strat 221 -0.27 -0.394177
strat 221 -0.342 -0.394177
strat 222 -0.233 -0.398123
strat 223 -0.233 -0.402069
strat 223 -0.193 -0.402069
strat 224 -0.53 -0.406015
strat 225 -0.53 -0.409961
strat 225 -0.716 -0.409961*
strat 226 -0.701 -0.413907*
strat 227 -0.701 -0.417854*
strat 227 -0.774 -0.417854*
strat 228 -0.866 -0.4218*
strat 229 -0.866 -0.425746*
strat 229 -0.607 -0.425746
strat 230 -0.459 -0.429692
strat 231 -0.459 -0.433638
strat 231 -0.255 -0.433638
strat 232 -0.098 -0.437584*
strat 233 -0.098 -0.441531*
strat 233 -0.195 -0.441531*
> So the temperature at which CO2 radiates to space will decrease if CO2
> concentration increases.
> This means that the Eath as a whole we reduce it's space-bound radiation if
> CO2 increase, which effectively makes CO2 a better blanket.
> To quantify this effect, you need to run MODTRAN or some other radiative
> transfer theory based program, which shows something like this for the
> space-bound IR spectrum :
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png
...
k...@kymhorsell.com
> radiates to space will of course increase.
> Since convection will always assure that the lapse rate is sustained, higher
> altitudes will generally be colder.
For which there has been observational evidence for some time.
E.g.:
Discussion:
The dataset shows an approx (.0039*120 ==) .47 C per decade cooling of the
[In this update to the original post I note
<http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/2__Ozone/-_Cooling_nd.html>
indicates a ".5 C per decade" cooling is generally noted]
> So the temperature at which CO2 radiates to space will decrease if CO2
> concentration increases.
> This means that the Eath as a whole we reduce it's space-bound radiation if
> CO2 increase, which effectively makes CO2 a better blanket.
> To quantify this effect, you need to run MODTRAN or some other radiative
> transfer theory based program, which shows something like this for the
> space-bound IR spectrum :
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/ModtranRadiativeForcingDoub
leCO2.png
Dawlish
nutter; spouting conspiracy as a reason why science doesn't show what
he wants it to show.
There's some fundamentalism in that anti-science bent you have there
wd.
tunderbar
wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:51:35 -0800 (PST), Roger Coppock
>
> > How can a small amount of CO2 make such a large difference?
> > Please see the following demonstration:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
>
> > In California, this demonstration is junior high school general
> > science. (I've watched teachers being trained to give it.) So, it
> > may be over the head of the fossil fools on alt.global-warming.
>
> I haven't seen the video yet (my computer is fucked).
>
> In high school we used glass jars and a heat lamp to show the
> effects of CO2 in trapping heat. That was what... 30+ years ago.
> The paranoid whackjobs insist CO2 doesn't do what even high school
> students observe happening.....
Hey nutjob. A glass jar isn't the atmosphere and a heat lamp is not
the sun. When will you morons understand that the so-called greenhouse
effect is a completely different physics than a fucking glass jar and
CO2 or a plastic box and CO2 or 2 liters of water and fucking ink.
Do all the stupid glass jar demonstrations you want to. IT IS NOT THE
SAME as the Earths atmosphere and 12 ppm of man made CO2 and the sun
and the oceans and the water vapour, etc.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Right. Then you are unlikely to get your "proof" then are you, as it
would be difficult to construct all that in a laboratory, wouldn't it,
when you think about it?
Did you read the NASA link to an explanation of Radiative Transfer
theory?
tunderbar
>
> - Show quoted text -
It isn't my "proof" that is the issue. I'm not asking for 3% of global
GDP by 2030. It is your and the IPCC's "proof" that is in dispute. And
the computer models, that are used as a form of "proof" are a major
fail.
But I'm glad that you accept the reality that glas or plastic bottles
are nothing more than a sleight of hand trick.
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
tundy - you've been back on and not replied to this. Did you read and
did you understand the link. It will help. here it is again. It's
extremely understandable and explains how such small amounts of CO2
can affect global climate. Here it is again:
http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/meetings/2009summercoll/Barnet2_InfraRadTran.pdf
Bret Cahill
> > > Please see the following demonstration:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
. . .
> A glass jar isn't the atmosphere and a heat lamp is not
> the sun.
True. The sun puts out a few dozen orders of magnitude more radiation
that is captured by an atmosphere with a few dozen orders of magnitude
more CO2.
Are you this stupid in real life or are you just pulling out legs?
Bret Cahill
tunderbar
So, we agree that these stupid displays using bottles of water and
ink, or plastic containers and a heat lamp, proves absolutely nothing
with regards to co2 and the atmosphere.
Then why are you name calling and why do your fellow idiot agwers keep
bringing up these stupid little demonstrations as some kind of
scientific proof of something related to co2 and the atmosphere?
Fucking moron.
tunderbar
>
> - Show quoted text -
NOAA = global warming funds seeker
John Smith
> ...
> So, we agree that these stupid displays using bottles of water and
> ink, or plastic containers and a heat lamp, proves absolutely nothing
> with regards to co2 and the atmosphere.
>
> Then why are you name calling and why do your fellow idiot agwers keep
> bringing up these stupid little demonstrations as some kind of
> scientific proof of something related to co2 and the atmosphere?
> Fucking moron.
Co2 is a heavier gas than oxygen or nitrogen ... I find it strange that
it is "floating" on top of the lighter gases--which SHOULD be floating
on top of the Co2, in the upper atmosphere ...
Regards,
JS
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
tundyyyyy, it's not going away. I know it's hard sums, but you've got
to try.
Tom P
> How can a small amount of CO2 make such a large difference?
> Please see the following demonstration:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
>
> In California, this demonstration is junior high school general
> science. (I've watched teachers being trained to give it.) So, it
> may be over the head of the fossil fools on alt.global-warming.
To be fair, this presentation is much too simplistic. As a way of
proving that 280 ppm is not trivial - I mean they could have used 280
ppm botulin or polonium instead of ink to achieve an even more dramatic
effect - it completely fails to explain why an increase from 280 to 390
ppm is so significant compared with the atmospheric WV content. As long
as this is not made clear I can foresee that this video could become a
favorite denialist piece to prove how stupid AGWers are.
T.
Claudius Denk
> > > > How can a small amount of CO2 make such a large difference?
> > > > Please see the following demonstration:
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
>
> . . .
>
> > A glass jar isn't the atmosphere and a heat lamp is not
> > the sun.
>
> True. The sun puts out a few dozen orders of magnitude more radiation
> that is captured by an atmosphere with a few dozen orders of magnitude
> more CO2.
Is there a reason you won't just show us the math and/or experimental
evidence that undelies this? Or is it a secet?
Claudius Denk
> > >How can a small amount of CO2 make such a large difference?
>
>
> > It can't Roger, ya fearless furry freakshow.
>
> together and do a video proving a small amount of anything can never
> have much effect on anything.
>
> The denier community could do a whole series of videos. One denier is
> on youtube ingesting micrograms of plutonium, another denier is
> permanently changing the pH of his blood, another denier is
> permanently changing his internal body temperature a couple of
> degrees . . .
>
> Just don't mention my name.
>
> Bret Cahill
This is a perfect example of how illiterate AGW advocates are when it
comes to scientific methods.
Peter Franks
The atmosphere is opaque at a CO2 concentration of 280 ppm.
Doubling the concentration, it is still opaque.
The water/ink is merely drama, there is NO correlation to modern-day
atmospheric transmissivity.
Tom P
The reason why CO2 is relevant is that only the first 5km of the
atmosphere is opaque. The WV concentration drops dramatically at higher
altitudes as a result of the lapse rate. Between 5km and 8km WV vanishes
and CO2 is the predominant GHG. This can be observed quite clearly in
satellite observations of the emitted IR spectrum.
Do please try and learn some facts if you want to contribute anything
useful to the discussion.
Tom P
You might find it strange. CO2 does not. So on your version of planet
earth, water vapor floats to the stratosphere and we all suffocate of
CO2 poisoning?
Tom P
Tundy, I quite agree with you. This is not a scientific demonstration of
something related to co2 and the atmosphere.
As I said on my other post, this youtube video does not contribute
anything to understanding how GHGs work, let alone why CO2 should be a
problem.
John Smith
> ...
> You might find it strange. CO2 does not. So on your version of planet
> earth, water vapor floats to the stratosphere and we all suffocate of
> CO2 poisoning?
>
So, you believe Co2 is a lighter than air gas and found mainly in the
upper atmosphere, such as hydrogen and helium are?
Regards,
JS
John Smith
Perhaps you could do a video and prove your point. Say, fill 4
balloons, each with a different gas, one with hydrogen, one with helium,
one with plain air, and one with Co2.
Then, release the four balloons, noting that the one filled with
hydrogen, as well as the one filled with helium goes straight up, even
lifting the weight of the balloon carrying the lighter than air gas.
Then, notice the balloon filled with air, and the balloon filled with
Co2 sink to the floor, and also noting the Co2 filled balloon sinks more
rapidly than the balloon filled with air.
Your analogy with heater water vapor rising is interesting, but what
goes up, must come down. And, sure enough, the water does return to
earth ... and so with Co2.
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> You might find it strange. CO2 does not. So on your version of planet
> earth, water vapor floats to the stratosphere and we all suffocate of
> CO2 poisoning?
>
Another interesting point, the human body is composed of ~18.5% carbon
... that takes a LOT of Co2 to supply that 18.5%. (18.5 Lbs. in every
100 pounds of the human body.)
Now, we don't uptake Co2 directly. Plants first covert Co2 to carbon in
their plant mass and we uptake our carbon from there, or from animals
who have gained their carbon from plant materials.
Plants DO use Co2 as their main form of carbon ... that takes A LOT OF
Co2 to supply them with carbon on this planet each and every day ... I
would guess, unfathomable metric tons each and everyday ...
Regards,
JS
Peter Franks
Doesn't matter, the atmosphere is still opaque.
As I said, the water/ink is merely drama, there is NO correlation to
modern-day atmospheric transmissivity and nothing you said has refuted that.
Desertphile
wrote:
Ink was used because it blocks the electromagnetic spectrum in the
convienent human-eyesight range. Similar demonstrations use CO2,
but digital thermometers are used to show the effect because, of
course, humans cannot see in the infrared band.
The demonstration was accurate; CO2 blocks part of the low-end IR
band just as ink blocks part of the human-visible light band.
--
Desertphile
wrote:
Opaque: 1.a. Impenetrable by light; neither transparent nor
translucent. b. Not reflecting light; having no luster. 2.
Impenetrable by a form of radiant energy other than visible light.
CO2 blocks a part of the IR band: an observed fact.
> The water/ink is merely drama, there is NO correlation to modern-day
> atmospheric transmissivity.
You're being silly.
Tom P
well-mixed, water vapour is not. Water vapour is restricted to the lower
atmosphere by the laws of thermodynamics. It has nothing to do with the
molecular weight.
Hint: read up on the Clausius-Clapeyron equation.
T.
John Smith
> ...
> Another interesting point, the human body is composed of ~18.5% carbon
> ... that takes a LOT of Co2 to supply that 18.5%. (18.5 Lbs. in every
> 100 pounds of the human body.)
>
> Now, we don't uptake Co2 directly. Plants first covert Co2 to carbon in
> their plant mass and we uptake our carbon from there, or from animals
> who have gained their carbon from plant materials.
>
> Plants DO use Co2 as their main form of carbon ... that takes A LOT OF
> Co2 to supply them with carbon on this planet each and every day ... I
> would guess, unfathomable metric tons each and everyday ...
>
> Regards,
> JS
That is even ignoring the fact that without Co2 we would NOT HAVE OXYGEN
TO BREATHE!
The plants, when they consume the Co2, break the two oxygen molecules
off, into the atmosphere, for us to breathe. Not only that, but the
carbon atoms, which they use as nourishment, provides the NOURISHMENT WE
NEED! That is our only source of carbon!
If human beings, on the average, were not so easy to fool, government
would not have the billions of fools to govern! Get educated, take, at
least, one fool away from them!
Regards,
JS
Tom P
> On 12/23/2010 10:33 AM, Tom P wrote:
>
>> ...
>> You might find it strange. CO2 does not. So on your version of planet
>> earth, water vapor floats to the stratosphere and we all suffocate of
>> CO2 poisoning?
>>
>
> Another interesting point, the human body is composed of ~18.5% carbon
> 100 pounds of the human body.)
>
> Now, we don't uptake Co2 directly. Plants first covert Co2 to carbon in
> their plant mass and we uptake our carbon from there, or from animals
> who have gained their carbon from plant materials.
>
> Plants DO use Co2 as their main form of carbon ... that takes A LOT OF
> Co2 to supply them with carbon on this planet each and every day ... I
> would guess, unfathomable metric tons each and everyday ...
>
> Regards,
> JS
>
>
exagarration. The seasonal variation of atmospheric CO2 concentration is
due to the take-up and release of carbon by the biomass. There's even a
motion film out on the internet somewhere showing how the Northern
hemisphere "breathes" Co2.
So, what point are you trying to make?
T.
John Smith
So, you are saying, if I fill an enclosed container with half oxygen and
half Co2, mix the gases up, sit it down, come back, I will NOT find the
Co2 in the lower half of the container?
Man, you must be the product of "the new school system" which
specializes in turning out brain washed morons!
Get educated! Nature has a way of getting the Co2 to the plants where
it is needed, and from there feeds carbon TO ALL LIVING LIFE FORMS ON
THIS PLANET!
Regards,
JS
John Smith
>> ...
> That's quite correct, although "unfathomable" might be an exagarration.
> The seasonal variation of atmospheric CO2 concentration is due to the
> take-up and release of carbon by the biomass. There's even a motion film
> out on the internet somewhere showing how the Northern hemisphere
> "breathes" Co2.
>
> So, what point are you trying to make?
>
> T.
>
Bottom line?
Without Co2 we would suffocate; there would be no oxygen to breathe!
It is only because of the plants, breaking two oxygen molecules from Co2
and "eating" the carbon atom, that we are provided with the life giving
oxygen we all require, indeed, all lifeforms require.
Rip open a book on plant biology and give it another try ...
Regards,
JS
John Smith
> ...
> So, you are saying, if I fill an enclosed container with half oxygen and
> half Co2, mix the gases up, sit it down, come back, I will NOT find the
> Co2 in the lower half of the container?
>
> Man, you must be the product of "the new school system" which
> specializes in turning out brain washed morons!
>
> Get educated! Nature has a way of getting the Co2 to the plants where
> it is needed, and from there feeds carbon TO ALL LIVING LIFE FORMS ON
> THIS PLANET!
>
> Regards,
> JS
>
Or, put simply, WE ARE CARBON BASED LIFEFORMS; Carbon is totally,
ABSOLUTELY, necessary to our very existence ... carbon is a blessing it
is NOT A TOXIN! Things absolutely necessary to human survival should
NOT be taxed ... like the air we breathe and the water we drink SHOULD
NOT BE TAXED!
Regards,
JS
Tom P
> On 12/23/2010 2:17 PM, Tom P wrote:
>> On 12/23/2010 07:44 PM, John Smith wrote:
>>> On 12/23/2010 10:33 AM, Tom P wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> You might find it strange. CO2 does not. So on your version of planet
>>>> earth, water vapor floats to the stratosphere and we all suffocate of
>>>> CO2 poisoning?
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, you believe Co2 is a lighter than air gas and found mainly in the
>>> upper atmosphere, such as hydrogen and helium are?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> JS
>>>
Not at all what I said. The point is that whereas all other gases are
well-mixed, water vapour is not. Water vapour is restricted to the lower
atmosphere by the laws of thermodynamics. It has nothing to do with the
molecular weight.
Hint: read up on the Clausius-Clapeyron equation.
>
> So, you are saying, if I fill an enclosed container with half oxygen and
> half Co2, mix the gases up, sit it down, come back, I will NOT find the
> Co2 in the lower half of the container?
>
Correct. See, you just learned something. Well, you could cool the
container down to around -80°c, then the CO2 will form a solid layer at
the bottom.
> Man, you must be the product of "the new school system" which
> specializes in turning out brain washed morons!
>
That's true. University education does help.
> Get educated! Nature has a way of getting the Co2 to the plants where
> it is needed, and from there feeds carbon TO ALL LIVING LIFE FORMS ON
> THIS PLANET!
>
You may have noticed that nature has a way of getting O2 to humans as well.
> Regards,
> JS
>
John Smith
>> ...
> You may have noticed that nature has a way of getting O2 to humans as well.
>
>
>> Regards,
>> JS
>>
>
Yeah, it is called "plants," which "eat" the Co2.
Perhaps we are doing damage in the destruction of the tropical rain
forests, where Co2 is transformed to O2 and C on a MASSIVE SCALE ... but
no tax will fix that ... the solutions are all obvious, and DO NOT
INVOLVE A CARBON TAX ON CARBON BASED LIFEFORMS!
Regards,
JS
Tom P
Er yes, well, I agree, no CO2 then no plants. Fine, good night and Merry
Christmas.
k...@kymhorsell.com
...
> Co2 is a heavier gas than oxygen or nitrogen ... I find it strange that
> it is "floating" on top of the lighter gases--which SHOULD be floating
> on top of the Co2, in the upper atmosphere ...
Luckily we have some incoming -ve entropy and the gases don't
just "lay there". It would be hard to breath. :)
--
What profiteth a man if he gain the whole world but lose sight of the
basic results of multivariate decision theory?
John Smith
> ...
> Er yes, well, I agree, no CO2 then no plants. Fine, good night and Merry
> Christmas.
>
DUDE! MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR! To you and all yours. :-)
Thanks for the discussion!
Warm regards,
JS
k...@kymhorsell.com
>>> ...
>> That's quite correct, although "unfathomable" might be an exagarration.
>> The seasonal variation of atmospheric CO2 concentration is due to the
>> take-up and release of carbon by the biomass. There's even a motion film
>> out on the internet somewhere showing how the Northern hemisphere
>> "breathes" Co2.
>> So, what point are you trying to make?
>> T.
> Bottom line?
> Without Co2 we would suffocate; there would be no oxygen to breathe!
> It is only because of the plants, breaking two oxygen molecules from Co2
While "plants" are just the largest source of oxygen, they are
technocally not the "only" source.
And of the plants more than 1/2 the oxygen from the biosophere comes
from 1 species of plankton.
So don't screw the oceans up.
--
> Sure. It was also once normal to not have humans, mammals or even chordates
> on the planet. LOL.
Those things are gone.
-- John Smith <assembl...@gmail.com>, 21 Dec 2010 22:23:15 -0800
The Killer©
>
>> Get educated! Nature has a way of getting the Co2 to the plants where
>> it is needed, and from there feeds carbon TO ALL LIVING LIFE FORMS ON
>> THIS PLANET!
>>
> You may have noticed that nature has a way of getting O2 to humans as well.
I thought that C02 was our friend! Bigger plants! More robust crops!
C02 made the arctic warm, so warm that it was once a warm sea with alligators
and turtles, and lush forests on Ellesmere Island too, first with tropical
and broadleaf forests like the Amazon, and has it got colder, with decidious
forests who lose their leaves during cold seasons or ones mainly of pine
forests, then no forests at all!
For 40 million years, Ellesmere Island was a lot like the The Caribbean is
today.
But that took millions of years to occur and millions of years for it to
become chilly again as well. It didn't happen in 1,000 years. It didn't
happen in 200 years.
But pin heads have trouble seeing things beyond simple, one dimensional
aspects. After all, didn't Rush say that the Gulf of Mexico leaks massive
amounts of oil naturally into the ocean, so the BP disaster "was just
natural"?
Bill Ward
> On 12/23/2010 2:17 PM, Tom P wrote:
>> On 12/23/2010 07:44 PM, John Smith wrote:
>>> On 12/23/2010 10:33 AM, Tom P wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> You might find it strange. CO2 does not. So on your version of
>>>> planet earth, water vapor floats to the stratosphere and we all
>>>> suffocate of CO2 poisoning?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> So, you believe Co2 is a lighter than air gas and found mainly in the
>>> upper atmosphere, such as hydrogen and helium are?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> JS
>>>
>> Not at all what I said. The point is that whereas all other gases are
>> well-mixed, water vapour is not. Water vapour is restricted to the
>> lower atmosphere by the laws of thermodynamics. It has nothing to do
>> with the molecular weight.
>>
>> Hint: read up on the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. T.
>
> So, you are saying, if I fill an enclosed container with half oxygen and
> half Co2, mix the gases up, sit it down, come back, I will NOT find the
> Co2 in the lower half of the container?
Actually, John, you won't. The gases will be well mixed because the
kinetic energy due to their temperature is far larger then the difference
in gravitational energy between the top and the bottom. CO2 really is
found at altitude. That doesn't mean it affects surface temperatures,
though.
John Smith
> ...
> Actually, John, you won't. The gases will be well mixed because the
> kinetic energy due to their temperature is far larger then the difference
> in gravitational energy between the top and the bottom. CO2 really is
> found at altitude. That doesn't mean it affects surface temperatures,
> though.
> ...
Then, have it your way, makes NO DIFFERENCE. Since the plants, on the
surface (algae, lichens, etc.) are pulling MANY METRIC TONS OF Co2 from
the atmosphere, by sheer DIFFUSION OF THE GASSES THROUGH THE ATMOSPHERE,
Co2 from the higher regions will keep falling to the lower ones ...
Amazing, isn't. Nature can take care of herself without mans'
intervention ... and frankly, when nature views man as a "problem", I'd
imagine she YAWNS!
Ether way, though any arguments, a CARBON TAX IS A RIP OFF -- SHEER
THEFT OF MONEY/WEALTH FROM THE MASSES!
The real problem is criminally-treasonous-public-servants, from the
president on down, big corporations, big business and the rich elite and
powerful ... so has it been though all mans' existence.
Regards,
JS
Last Post
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:23:57 -0800, John Smith wrote:
> > On 12/23/2010 2:17 PM, Tom P wrote:
> >> On 12/23/2010 07:44 PM, John Smith wrote:
> >>> So, you believe Co2 is a lighter than air gas and found mainly in the
> >>> upper atmosphere, such as hydrogen and helium are?
ø CO2 is much heavier than air and can only
remain in the air as long as the water vapour
that hosts it. When the cloud meets a cold
front, the works get dumped water, NOX,
co2, etc.
> >> Not at all what I said. The point is that whereas all other gases are
> >> well-mixed, water vapour is not. Water vapour is restricted to the
> >> lower atmosphere by the laws of thermodynamics. It has nothing to do
> >> with the molecular weight.
ø Bullshit!!!
Last Post
> It makes a whole lot of difference in beer and soda drinks
> and it makes the plants grow faster ...
>
> Photosynthesis (CO2) is vital for life on Earth.
>
> As well as maintaining the normal level of oxygen in
> the atmosphere, nearly all life either depends on it
> directly as a source of energy, or indirectly as the
> ultimate source of the energy in their food.
>
> The amount of energy trapped by photosynthesis is
> immense, approximately 100 terawatts: which is
> about six times larger than the power consumption
> of human civilization.
>
> As well as energy, photosynthesis is also the source
> of the carbon in all the organic compounds within
> organisms' bodies. In all, photosynthetic organisms
> convert around 100,000,000,000 tonnes of carbon
> into biomass per year.
On Dec 22, 8:36 pm, k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
> In sci.skeptic Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
> > Tell enough lies and you live inside your own little made-up world.
> > On Dec 22, 5:00?pm, Well Done <WellD...@WellHoned.com> wrote: > >
[ . . . ] > >> Science tells us man's contribution to atmo CO2 is
negligable.
> > NOPE - - Simply a lie
ø Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide equals
no
more than 0.03234 of the total CO2.
-- FoS
> >> Science tells us Earth's temp (as best as we can measure/estimate) has
> >> been decreasing for years. ?
> > NOPE - - Scientists know how to compute statistical significance.
> Even most of the hard-core "skeptics" will admit there is a
> warming trend due to emergence from the last ice-age. Appararently
> this is the thin end of a wedge for the hard-hardcore. :)
ø Sorry to disappoint you Kym.
The last ice age ended about 116,500 years ago.
The interglacial period ended about 1,500 years ago
The past 1,500 years has been the down slope to
the next ice age. Granted the slope has been uneven,
with a number of periods like the Mediaeval Warm
Period and the "Little Ice Age". But the past 150 years
has been generally in a down trend.
— —
* Tyndall was the first to correctly measure the
infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen,
oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone,
methane, etc. He concluded that water vapour is
the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the
atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air
temperature. Absorption by the bulk of the other
gases is negligible.
Absorption_by_the_bulk_of_the_other_gases_is_negligible.
Every indication points to reglaciation commencing
some time after 2020 but not later than 2050.
There will be hot days in the usual hot spots and
cold and blizzard in the snow belts. There will be a
lot of extremes so prepare for lots of hots and colds,
batten the hatches, store backup fuel. The ice will
not appear in the 50th parallel before 5-10,000 yrs.
> > On Dec 22, 5:00?pm, Well Done <WellD...@WellHoned.com> wrote:
> > [ . . . ]
> >> Science tells us man's
contribution to atmo CO2 is negligable.
> > NOPE - - Simply a lie
ø Copycock can not get anytghing straight
ø Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide equals
no more than 0.03234 of the total CO2.
> >> Science tells us Earth's temp (as best as we can measure/estimate) has
> >> been decreasing for years. ?
> > NOPE - - Scientists know how to compute statistical significance.
ø In other words They play with their computers
and play doctor with the data,
> Even most of the hard-core "skeptics" will admit there is a
> warming trend due to emergence from the last ice-age. Appararently
> this is the thin end of a wedge for the hard-hardcore.
ø Sorry to disappoint you Kym.
The last ice age ended about 116,500 years ago.
The interglacial period ended about 1,500 years ago
The past 1,500 years has been the down slope to
the next ice age. Granted the slope has been uneven,
with a number of periods like the Mediaeval Warm
Period and the "Little Ice Age". But the past 150 years
has been generally in a down trend.
— —
* Tyndall was the first to correctly measure the
infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen,
oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone,
methane, etc. He concluded that water vapour is
the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the
atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air
temperature. Absorption by the bulk of the other
gases is negligible.
Absorption_by_the_bulk_of_the_other_gases_is_negligible.
Every indication points to reglaciation commencing
some time after 2020 but not later than 2050.
There will be hot days in the usual hot spots and
cold and blizzard in the snow belts. There will be a
lot of extremes so prepare for lots of hots and colds,
batten the hatches, store backup fuel. The ice will
not appear in the 50th parallel before 5-10,000 yrs.
Roger Coppock
> Last Post <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote:
>
> > The last ice age ended about 116,500 years ago.
> > The interglacial period ended about 1,500 years ago
> > The past 1,500 years has been the down slope to
> > the next ice age. Granted the slope has been uneven,
> > with a number of periods like the Mediaeval Warm
> > Period and the "Little Ice Age". But the past 150 years
> > has been generally in a down trend.
>
> <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com>, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com>,
> and many other newsgroup pollutants NEED to read and understand this
> posting by "last post". I assure you, they won't.
I have. It's a lot of unsubstantiated claims,
which can be debunked within less than
a minute of research, a bubble of fantasy.
>
> >* Tyndall was the first to correctly measure the
> > infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen,
> > oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone,
> > methane, etc. He concluded that water vapour is
> > the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the
> > atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air
> > temperature. Absorption by the bulk of the other
> > gases is negligible.
>
> >Absorption_by_the_bulk_of_the_other_gases_is_negligible.
>
> > Every indication points to reglaciation commencing
> > some time after 2020 but not later than 2050.
> > There will be hot days in the usual hot spots and
> > cold and blizzard in the snow belts. There will be a
> > lot of extremes so prepare for lots of hots and colds,
> > batten the hatches, store backup fuel. The ice will
> > not appear in the 50th parallel before 5-10,000 yrs.
>
> Great post. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, keep your powder dry.
> --
> ): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
> (: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
Catoni
>
> http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/meetings/2009summercoll/Barnet2_I...
>
> Please read it, then you'll realise that the scientists who designed
> the curriculum for the california youngsters would have read and
> completely understood science like this.
>
> Of course, you could now try to say that NASA and their physics people
> aren't science, as you people actually do from time to time, but
> people just laugh when you say something like that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tell it to your comrade erschroedinger... he's the one that gives
skeptics shit for using Youtube. And then you guys go and use it
anyways...
"Sorry, I don't consider youtube science, but now I know what you
> > mean when you say you study science -- you watch youtube."
> > - erschroedinger
"Youtube is not science. Sorry to have to break that to you."
> > - erschroedinger
>
Catoni
> On Dec 23, 12:59 am, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 16:51:35 -0800 (PST), Roger Coppock
>
> > <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:
> > > How can a small amount of CO2 make such a large difference?
> > > Please see the following demonstration:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
>
> > > In California, this demonstration is junior high school general
> > > science. (I've watched teachers being trained to give it.) So, it
> > > may be over the head of the fossil fools on alt.global-warming.
>
>
> > In high school we used glass jars and a heat lamp to show the
> > effects of CO2 in trapping heat. That was what... 30+ years ago.
> > The paranoid whackjobs insist CO2 doesn't do what even high school
> > students observe happening.....
>
> Hey nutjob. A glass jar isn't the atmosphere and a heat lamp is not
> the sun. When will you morons understand that the so-called greenhouse
> effect is a completely different physics than a fucking glass jar and
> CO2 or a plastic box and CO2 or 2 liters of water and fucking ink.
>
> Do all the stupid glass jar demonstrations you want to. IT IS NOT THE
> SAME as the Earths atmosphere and 12 ppm of man made CO2 and the sun
> and the oceans and the water vapour, etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> > --http://desertphile.org
> > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
These nutter AGW Alarmists think they have all the answers in glass
jars, water and ink experiments .
They can explain Gorebull Warming and the Earth's climate with
glass jars and ink. Sure.... okay... lol ;)
AGW Alarmists are some of the most arrogant and conceited people
on the face of the planet. That's a fact !
John Smith
> ...
> Tell it to your comrade erschroedinger... he's the one that gives
> skeptics shit for using Youtube. And then you guys go and use it
> anyways...
>
> "Sorry, I don't consider youtube science, but now I know what you
>>> mean when you say you study science -- you watch youtube."
>>> - erschroedinger
>
> "Youtube is not science. Sorry to have to break that to you."
>>> - erschroedinger
>>
Taking cheap shots at youtube is just another case of "killing the
messenger." It is not youtube which provide truth or falseness, it is
WHAT YOUTUBE VIDEOS SHOW that determines the worth of the message ...
Yours is just a variation of the strawman argument ... first, you have
to be intelligent enough to know such insane babblings involving
"killing the messenger" only make you look weak and stupid.
The same truth said by a wino is just as valid as the same truth said by
a nun ...
Regards,
JS
leona...@gmail.com
> On Dec 23, 6:03 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:23:57 -0800, John Smith wrote:
> > On 12/23/2010 2:17 PM, Tom P wrote:
> >> On 12/23/2010 07:44 PM, John Smith wrote:
> >>> So, you believe Co2 is a lighter than air gas and found mainly
in the
> >>> upper atmosphere, such as hydrogen and helium are?
ø CO2 is much heavier than air and can only
remain in the air as long as the water vapour
that hosts it. When the cloud meets a cold
front, the works get dumped water, NOX,
co2, etc.
> >> Not at all what I said. The point is that whereas all other
gases are
> >> well-mixed, water vapour is not.
ø Fool, how do the "other gases" get up there?
What/where is the source?
> > >> Water vapour is restricted to the
> > >> lower atmosphere by the laws of thermodynamics. It has nothing to do
> > >> with the molecular weight.
ø Bullshit!!! Wherever there is water, when the
water temperature exceeds the air above
(usually at night and the morning before the
sunrise) evaporation takes place. In the water
there usually is a pot pourri solution of
gaseous elements— co2, NOX, Methane,
CFC, etc. When these form a cloud they get
moved around by the winds until they meet a
cold front and the cloud becomes fertilizer.
There is no way for the water vapour and/or
co2 to rise above 10,000 feet. Those of you,
I know Keating and CopyCock do, who speak
of 20 year old co2 stored above the
troposphere, are just masterbating or at best
hallucinating.
ø Sorry to disappoint you Kym.
The last ice age ended about 16,500 years ago.
The interglacial period ended about 1,500 years ago
The past 1,500 years has been the down slope to
the next ice age. Granted the slope has been uneven,
with a number of periods like the Mediaeval Warm
Period and the "Little Ice Age". But that is how Nature
works. The past 150 years has been generally in a
down trend.
Every indication points to reglaciation commencing
some time after 2020 but not later than 2050.
There will be hot days in the usual hot spots and
cold and blizzards in the snow belts. There will be a
lot of extremes so prepare for lots of hots and colds,
batten the hatches, store backup fuel. The ice will
not appear in the 50th parallel before 5-10,000 yrs.
— —
leona...@gmail.com
ø You forgot stupid!!!! But that goes hand
in hand with arrogance <G>
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 23, 7:16 pm, Last Post <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote:
>> On Dec 23, 6:03 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 14:23:57 -0800, John Smith wrote:
> > > On 12/23/2010 2:17 PM, Tom P wrote:
> > >> On 12/23/2010 07:44 PM, John Smith wrote:
> > >>> So, you believe Co2 is a lighter than air gas and found mainly
>in the
> > >>> upper atmosphere, such as hydrogen and helium are?
>
> ø CO2 is much heavier than air and can only
> remain in the air as long as the water vapour
> that hosts it.
The dumbshit hasn't heard of "wind".
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
JohnM
You seem to have missed the point of the experiment, which was to
demonstrate nothing more than that relatively small quantities can be
capable of exaggerated effects. Whether CO2 in the atmosphere behaves
in a similar way was not part of the conclusion.
The effect of ricin on the human body is another excellent
demonstration of the small-can-be-powerful paradigm, but this would
nor be allowable as a demo in too many countries.
Tom P
> On 12/23/2010 10:30 AM, Tom P wrote:
>> On 12/23/2010 07:20 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
>>> On 12/23/2010 10:05 AM, Tom P wrote:
>>>> On 12/23/2010 01:51 AM, Roger Coppock wrote:
>>>>> How can a small amount of CO2 make such a large difference?
>>>>> Please see the following demonstration:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA
>>>>>
>>>>> In California, this demonstration is junior high school general
>>>>> science. (I've watched teachers being trained to give it.) So, it
>>>>> may be over the head of the fossil fools on alt.global-warming.
>>>>
>>>> proving that 280 ppm is not trivial - I mean they could have used 280
>>>> ppm botulin or polonium instead of ink to achieve an even more dramatic
>>>> effect - it completely fails to explain why an increase from 280 to 390
>>>> ppm is so significant compared with the atmospheric WV content. As long
>>>> as this is not made clear I can foresee that this video could become a
>>>> favorite denialist piece to prove how stupid AGWers are.
>>>
>>> The atmosphere is opaque at a CO2 concentration of 280 ppm.
>>>
>>> Doubling the concentration, it is still opaque.
>>>
>>> The water/ink is merely drama, there is NO correlation to modern-day
>>> atmospheric transmissivity.
>>
>> The reason why CO2 is relevant is that only the first 5km of the
>> atmosphere is opaque. The WV concentration drops dramatically at higher
>> altitudes as a result of the lapse rate. Between 5km and 8km WV vanishes
>> and CO2 is the predominant GHG. This can be observed quite clearly in
>> satellite observations of the emitted IR spectrum.
>>
>> Do please try and learn some facts if you want to contribute anything
>> useful to the discussion.
>
> Doesn't matter, the atmosphere is still opaque.
>
Still ignoring what I just wrote? Only the first 5km is opaque, and that
over specific bands of the IR spectrum. As long as you refuse to
understand this, you will never understand the problem.
> As I said, the water/ink is merely drama, there is NO correlation to
> modern-day atmospheric transmissivity and nothing you said has refuted
> that.
Peter Franks
Umm, I've never heard anything about this supposed 5 km of atmospheric
opacity regarding CO2-affected wavelengths. Could you please provide a
substantive reference to support this claim?
Benj
The "opacity" is easily seen in any spectroscopic manual of
atmospheric transmissivity. Basically it's not there.
The water-Ink drama is just more solid proof that AGW is a political
program having nothing to do with science and now having everything to
do with indoctrinating children. Ink = CO2 Beaker of water = Earth's
atmosphere. Yeah, that's excellent "science"... about on a par with
the rest of today's "education" system.
And as if you needed any more proof of the "warmer" political agenda,
just look out the freakin' window at the SNOW and COLD out there.
Wasn't Europe supposed to be subtropical by now? Oh, I forgot. Record
cold = proof of Global Warming.
Desertphile
> On 12/23/2010 2:17 PM, Tom P wrote:
> > On 12/23/2010 07:44 PM, John Smith wrote:
> >> On 12/23/2010 10:33 AM, Tom P wrote:
> >>
> >>> ...
> >>> You might find it strange. CO2 does not. So on your version of planet
> >>> earth, water vapor floats to the stratosphere and we all suffocate of
> >>> CO2 poisoning?
> >>>
> >>
> >> So, you believe Co2 is a lighter than air gas and found mainly in the
> >> upper atmosphere, such as hydrogen and helium are?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> JS
> >>
> > Not at all what I said. The point is that whereas all other gases are
> > well-mixed, water vapour is not. Water vapour is restricted to the lower
> > atmosphere by the laws of thermodynamics. It has nothing to do with the
> > molecular weight.
> >
> > Hint: read up on the Clausius-Clapeyron equation.
> > T.
> So, you are saying, if I fill an enclosed container with half oxygen and
> half Co2, mix the gases up, sit it down, come back, I will NOT find the
> Co2 in the lower half of the container?
Now put a fan in it, idiot. Sheeeish.
> Man, you must be the product of "the new school system" which
> specializes in turning out brain washed morons!
Earth's atmosphere is constantly agitated, shit-for-brains.
> Get educated! Nature has a way of getting the Co2 to the plants where
> it is needed, and from there feeds carbon TO ALL LIVING LIFE FORMS ON
> THIS PLANET!
>
> Regards,
> JS
--
Desertphile
wrote:
> On 12/23/2010 07:58 PM, John Smith wrote:
> > On 12/23/2010 10:33 AM, Tom P wrote:
> >
> >> ...
> >> You might find it strange. CO2 does not. So on your version of planet
> >> earth, water vapor floats to the stratosphere and we all suffocate of
> >> CO2 poisoning?
> >>
> >
> > Another interesting point, the human body is composed of ~18.5% carbon
> > .... that takes a LOT of Co2 to supply that 18.5%. (18.5 Lbs. in every
> > 100 pounds of the human body.)
> >
> > Now, we don't uptake Co2 directly. Plants first covert Co2 to carbon in
> > their plant mass and we uptake our carbon from there, or from animals
> > who have gained their carbon from plant materials.
> >
> > Plants DO use Co2 as their main form of carbon ... that takes A LOT OF
> > Co2 to supply them with carbon on this planet each and every day ... I
> > would guess, unfathomable metric tons each and everyday ...
> >
> > Regards,
> > JS
> That's quite correct, although "unfathomable" might be an
> exagarration. The seasonal variation of atmospheric CO2 concentration is
> due to the take-up and release of carbon by the biomass. There's even a
> motion film out on the internet somewhere showing how the Northern
> hemisphere "breathes" Co2.
>
> So, what point are you trying to make?
One can even plot the cycle using a few of the available datasets.
Seasonal temperature goes up, then CO2 goes down; seasonal
temperature drops, CO2 goes up. There must be hundreds of images
on the Internet showing the cycle.
Over longer periods, of course, CO2 increased and increases before
temperature went up and goes up. That's the problem.
John Smith
> ...
Another imbecilic-idiotic-moron to the bit bucket ... they have been
falling like cats-and-dogs, bad storm of 'em ... are they closing down
more mental instutions or providing more computers in the day rooms of
mental institutions?
... plonk ...
Regards,
JS
Desertphile
> In sci.skeptic John Smith <assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> > Co2 is a heavier gas than oxygen or nitrogen ... I find it strange that
> > it is "floating" on top of the lighter gases--which SHOULD be floating
> > on top of the Co2, in the upper atmosphere ...
> Luckily we have some incoming -ve entropy and the gases don't
> just "lay there". It would be hard to breath. :)
If CO2 did "just lay there" down here on the surface, people who
suffer from anxiety attacks would be effected (as the IPCC noted)
due to the concentrated layer of CO2:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_annex1.pdf
But that will never happen due to atmospheric agitation.
"John Smith" needs to turn his television off.
Desertphile
<assembl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Another imbecilic-idiotic-moron to the bit bucket ... they have been
> falling like cats-and-dogs, bad storm of 'em ... are they closing down
> more mental instutions or providing more computers in the day rooms of
> mental institutions?
Huh? It is an observed fact that CO2 is well-mixed in Earth's
atmosphere, and not laying down here on the surface. If it was
otherwise, your heart rate would be different; your entire
metabolism would be different. It's called "wind," idiot.
Last Post
> ø Sorry to disappoint you Kym.
> The last ice age ended about 16,500 years ago.
Last Post
> On Dec 22, 7:34 pm, Well Done <WellD...@WellHoned.com> wrote:
>
> > Last Post <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote:
>
> > > The interglacial period ended about 1,500 years ago
> > > The past 1,500 years has been the down slope to
> > > the next ice age. Granted the slope has been uneven,
> > > with a number of periods like the Mediaeval Warm
> > > Period and the "Little Ice Age". But the past 150 years
> > > has been generally in a down trend.
>
> > Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com>, Bret Cahill
> > <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com>, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com>,
> > and many other newsgroup pollutants NEED to read and understand this
> > posting by "last post". I assure you, they won't.
>
> I have. It's a lot of unsubstantiated claims,
> which can be debunked within less than
> a minute of research, a bubble of fantasy.
>
proofs debunking my "bubble of fantasy"? Come on
Cowardly Lion let's see what research you can find
in " a minute of research"? I suppose you are going
"debunk" Tyndall too?
Tom P
http://www.geo.mtu.edu/%7Escarn/teaching/GE4250/GE4250_hw8_AtmoEmission_key.pdf
Try and answer the questions.
leona...@gmail.com
ø Neither Tom nor Roger has one particle of clue.
They think that co2 is resident above the
troposphere. The fact is that co2 and all the so
called greenhouse gases hit the deck in less
than 30 days depending on location.
Their "opacity" is fiction.
ø
GH GAS | TOTAL | NATURE |MAN MADE
————————————————————————
H2O Vapour | 95.000% | 94.999% | 0.001%
————————————————————————
CO2 | 03.618% | 3.502% | 0.117%
————————————————————————
Methane | 0.260% | 0.294% | 0.066%
————————————————————————
Nitrous oxide | 0.950% | 0.903% | 0.047%
————————————————————————
Misc, CFC etc| 0.072% | 0.025% | 0.047%
————————————————————————
Anthropogenic carbon dioxide equals
no more than 0.03234 of the total co2,
FoS—
leona...@gmail.com
>
> http://www.geo.mtu.edu/%7Escarn/teaching/GE4250/GE4250_hw8_AtmoEmissi...
>
> Try and answer the questions.
ø Asking Tom Putz to answer science questions
is like blowing in the wind.
ø The hotter the oceans, the more water vapor sent
heavenward and the heavier the precipitation. This
explains the large number of record-breaking
rainfalls we've been seeing in the past couple of
years - with as noted above, areas of the United
States getting 20 inches of rain in a day or so.
As for that dreaded greenhouse gas, CO2,
atmospheric levels of which now approach 400
parts per million (ppm), it is important to note that
paleological records show that every time CO2
levels have exceeded 300 ppm there has been
an ice age. Every time - without exception.
ø Co2 exceeded 300 ppm in 1820 and several
times since
The same records show that there have
been a series of ice ages over the past 5
million years, naturally occurring every
100,000 years, with about 90,000 years of
glaciation followed by about 12,000 years
of interglacial climate.
The last ice age ended about 12,000
years ago. Clearly we are in line for the
next period of glaciation.
— —
Bill Ward
Once again you try to pretend H2O is not the major player. Note that the
graphs were all carefully selected for clear skies, except for the lower
trace on (c), showing radiation only from high in the stratosphere. If
the normal cloudy tropical situation were shown, you'd see high levels of
cooling radiation from clouds and WV around 5km, which maintains the
average radiation temperature at the required 255K.
Just because clouds are difficult to model doesn't mean you can omit
them. Read Miskolczi instead of oversimplified pablum.
Peter Franks
? You aren't my teacher, and I'm not interested in homework.
Either substantiate your claim, or it will be ignored.
Lurkers take note: see the games that these clowns play? Can't back up
squat.