Retief LIES! RETIEF GOT CAUGHT!!!

Retief wrote:
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 10:38:57 +0000, John Beardmore
wrote:

If the temperature of the sun increases, the rate at which energy
radiates away from this hotter object increases.

Yes. And the extent of this is ?

Quite substantial:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/p...olar_variabili
ty/lean2000_irradiance.txt

Doesn't look like a huge increase, though I grant it may make some
difference.

Retief LIES! RETIEF GOT CAUGHT!!!
1.5-2 W/m^2 since about 1910, depending on whose data you use.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/br...ll_03/fig2.gif

The 1910 data petered out after a few decades. The most recent data is
ONLY for the minima of the last two solar cycles, two years out of 22
years.

The increase at those two years, seperated by eleven years of no
increase, is 2 watts in outer space at the top of the atmosphere. Like
all the rest of the suns radiation those two watts get tithed on their
way inbound through the atmosphere. If either of both of those two
years had a major Pinatubo volcano eruption than zero of that extra
energy made it down to the ground.

Retief LIES! RETIEF GOT CAUGHT!!!

How about RETIEF digging up supporting documentation on those TWO YEARS
he claims had increased radiation of two watts up in space? The burden
is on him to support HIS THESIS.






BTW, the sun makes _all_ differences (the sun being the source of
energy).

NO **** Sherlock. Does Bush know yet?


What AGWers seem to claim is that the solar flux variations
will have no real effect on the largest amplifier: water vapor (and
water's positive feedback loop).

It has a big effect -- it self-cancels in a big way ending up in net
zero difference.

That's your BIG EFFECT -- ZERO.

The burden of proof is on Retief the chronic liar to produce evidence
supporting his quackery.

Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack!
Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack!
Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!!
Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack!
Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack!
Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!!



The contributions of water vapor are
very poorly understood,

Retief LIES! RETIEF GOT CAUGHT!!!

You can stop right there. You admit you have a poor understanding.
Everything else below about water vapor is therefore bull****.

Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack!
Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack!
Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!!
Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack!
Quack!!!



so claiming that we understand the various
atmospheric interactions extremely well is nonsense (as is the claim
that "we can reject water vapor as a main driver").

Retief LIES! RETIEF GOT CAUGHT!!!

Retief does understand the subject. He can't possibly evaluate what
other's know who do indeed understand the subject.

Retief LIES! RETIEF GOT CAUGHT!!!


Are you asserting that climate modellers haven't taken this
into account ?

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig6-8.htm, figure C.

Indicates that they use _perhaps_ as high as 0.2 w/m^2, but probably
less than that (assuming they arrived at this number by averaging this
over the Earth's surface, that's still only 0.8 W/m^2 flux increase
from the sun, which they may have folded into their models). If they
didn't average to arrive at this result, then they even more grossly
underestimated the flux.

They understand the subject that you admitted above you cannot
understand.

You are in no position to criticise until you improve your own
understanding. Leave the science to the pros and go back to your comic
books.


And we note that these "models" are largely curve fits, and not ab
initio calculations...

Retief LIES! RETIEF GOT CAUGHT!!!

Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack!
Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack!
Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!!
Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack! Quack!!! Quack! Quack!
Quack!!!


Retief