|
Post by nickrr on May 8, 2011 19:13:19 GMT 1
No, the laws of physics are quite clear - it's "heat it".
Why do people keep using these worn out arguments? Of course water vapour has a greater overall effect than CO2. The difference is that when it's concentration rises it rapidly leaves the atmosphere (unlike CO2). It's a phenomenon called "rain".
Wrong, it's also "heat it".
I particularly enjoyed "unfathomable damage to the intellectual currency of our civilisation". Very little connection with reality of course but still a nice phrase.
|
|
|
Post by nickcosmosonde on May 8, 2011 19:32:11 GMT 1
No, the laws of physics are quite clear - it's "heat it". Odd that there are Phds in climate science who admit they don't know about these laws of physics then. Are they Alzheimers' patients? Odd too that if what you claim to know about the "laws of physics" is true, that increased CO2 in the atmosphere normatively leads to increased global temperature, and as we all know increased global temperature leads to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, why in the many known periods in the Earth's history when CO2 was in far greater concentrations than it is today, such as in the medieval warm period for example, the Earth somehow managed to escape the inevitable runaway incineration? Odd too that there are definitely measured periods when CO2 concentration was rapidly increasing, such as in the late Edwardian-c.1970 period, when there the temperature is equally as definitely cooling. These "laws of physics" are strangely capricious, aren't they? Or could it be there's something more significant going on? You're simply guessing - otherwise known as "making it up", or talking out of your backside. No one has been able to measure the atmospheric content of water vapour. No one knows what happens to it, what it does, how long it takes to do it, or what the phenomenon is called. The reason people use "worn out arguments" is because they're arguing with people who make such totally illegitimate sweeping claims to knowledge they simply do not and can not possess. It's called the natural scepticism of the open scientific mind against anti-scientific dogmatism. You're willing to go on record as "knowing" that all the water vapour entering into the atmosphere has no effects other than falling to the ground as rain, are you? No effect on cloud production? No Iris effects on temperature? No interaction with the ion content of the lower ionosphere? No interaction with CO2? How have you come by such super-futuristic expertise? Just saying "Wrong" doesn't cut it in science. Well, from your comments I recognise an expert on that subject, and thank you for your compliment.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on May 8, 2011 21:42:37 GMT 1
Your posts, as always, show that your opinions are driven by politics not by science. They are, therefore, irrelevant. Climate "science" is driven by politics therefore, they are not.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 9, 2011 13:09:22 GMT 1
I don't know what you've got against blogs, nickrr. There are some round here who think it's perfectly OK to refer us to realclimate and SkepticalScience.
Blogs are not merely uninformed opinion (though some are). The best blogs provide easy access to the latest research coming out of universities and research establishments and, what is even better, a ready source of informed comment from a wide variety of experts. WUWT, Climate Audit, ClimateEtc and the Pielke's blogs are excellent.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 9, 2011 13:33:23 GMT 1
The surfacestations.org paper – acceptedPosted on May 8, 2011 by Anthony Watts wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/08/the-surfacestations-org-paper-accepted/#more-39532"After months of work, I’m pleased to announce that the paper that I have jointly written with several co-authors, including Dr. Roger Pielke Senior (who acted in the capacity as corresponding author) has run the peer review gauntlet and has been accepted." ------ nickrr will not be surprised to learn that I have put my money where my mouth is yet again and have contributed my 50 dollar's worth towards the colour printing costs of this paper. Citizen Science Go!!
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on May 9, 2011 18:55:00 GMT 1
No, it's just basic physics. Lots of other people know this too.
My understanding is that this is untrue but I'd be interested to see where you got this from.
Again just basic science. Of course there are also minor effects. The most significant is probably the positive feedback of increased atmospheric temperatures allowing increased concentration of water vapour, so accentuating the temperature rise.
I'm aware of the other bits and pieces you mention but I haven't seen any convincing evidence that they are material effects.
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on May 9, 2011 19:03:54 GMT 1
I don't have a problem with blogs in general but they won't necessarily give someone a balanced view of a subject - particularly if someone only looks at blogs on one side of an argument.
And they should never be consulted in preference to the original science because they are nearly always skewed towards the bias of the blogger.
|
|
|
Post by nickcosmosonde on May 9, 2011 19:14:38 GMT 1
No, it's just basic physics. Lots of other people know this too. That's the problem, it's basic physics. No one "knows" whether the simplistic model that works in a limited model or in an artificial experiment in the lab will have the same results in the complicated conditions of the atmosphere. The higher the temp the higher the CO2. First the temp, then the CO2 - the vast majority of which is entirely from natural sources. Yes. If your classroom science worked in the real world, we'd all have baked to death in the late 90s. No one has a clue what those effects are, or how minor or major they are. All anyone knows is that water vapour is far more significant as a greenhouse gas than C02, and that every theoretical prediction of its concentrations have so far turned out to be wildly inaccurate. No one knows what the effects of increased cloud cover, at different altitudes, ultimately turn out to be in terms of heat. If you think this is "basic science" I suggest you inform the IPCC, because they've admitted the consequences of the water vapour factor is a complete unknown and so I'm sure they'd find your greater knowledge invaluable. Not a scrap of evidence for this. All the evidence points in the opposite direction, in fact. At least two Iris effects are now proven mechanisms for a negative feedback. Measurements of water vapour in the troposphere have proven to be far higher than predicted, and yet the associated temperatures in the same region to be far, far lower. This is a puzzle for all the AGW alarnists, of course, because this is the altitude at which CO2 should have its greatest warming effect - yet satellite measurements show that it's far cooler than predicted. It shows no signal of AGW at all, in fact - on the contrary. There are hundreds of papers detailing the effects of ion content on the climate, and on cloud production, and on Iris effects, and on hydroxyl and dihydroxyl interactions with CO2. You simply have to look.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 9, 2011 19:35:56 GMT 1
I thought I had explained that the blogs I read are usually *ABOUT* original science, nickrr. They are *critical* of original science. They put original science under the spotlight of the collaborative expertise of MANY science-based specialisms.
It is the people who accept IPCC "original science" as unassailable who should re-examine their approach, not me.
I am not the one who claims a rising sea-level in the vicinity of the Falklands is an infallible indicator of a GLOBAL sea level rise, am I? I am the one who reminds people (i.e. YOU, nickrr, and your pal, Louise) that sea levels vary up AND down because of tectontic, barometric, gravitational, isostatic and cyclical factors amongst other things. I am the one who is aware of the existence Indian Ocean "warm pool", the variation between El Nino and La Nina conditions in the Pacific and the various ocean "oscillations" affecting relative sea level and temperature. I am not the one claiming Pacific Islands are sinking beneath an ever-rising ocean because anthropogenic CO2 makes the icecaps melt. I am not the one publicising every crackpot prediction that *unprecedented" glacier melt from Greenland to the Antarctic will drown Bangladesh and the Netherlands.
Alarmist clones like Louise are the foot soldiers of this unrepentant scare-mongering, not me. Turn your critical eye elsewhere for a change.
You are the ones, led by the nose by the likes of Hansen's bulldog, Gavin Schmidt, on the GISS/Realclimate blog, who cannot countenance criticism of what you moralistically believe is unassailable objective *research*. Acquire a little normal scepticism is my advice unless you wish to continue appearing to be gullible fools.
|
|