On Aug 29, 10:22 pm, Bill Ward wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:42:08 +0000, William Asher wrote:
Whata Fool wrote:

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:

Whata Fool wrote:
[snip]
I just can't ignore that man puts CO2 in the air, but I also
can't attribute everything that happens in weather to a trace gas that
is a small fraction of the major GreenHouse Gas 'water vapor'.

I'm absolutely conform with you, if man-made CO2 really has any effect,
which is, until now, not evidenced.

I thought you were doing studies of CO2 compared to temperature.

CO2 is no different than any other GHG except for concentration
and minor attributes.

So if GHG concentrations were closely related to temperature,
then if water vapor concentration increased, temperatures would
increase.

See how closely this describes AGW presumptions?

It seems so silly that it doesn't even seem worthwhile to think
it through, temperatures are wildly all over the place, whether humidity
changes or not, up or down.

As I see it, all CO2 can do is add about 2 percent to the thermal
transfer process that water vapor causes.
But that is only a small part of the many ways water and water
vapor affect the weather or climate.

I had the impression that you were suffering from a bad case of
"reverse Anthropogenic Global Warming" where CO2 concentrations follow
temperature changes closely. :-)

I think the annual global average temperature has two ups and two
downs each year, but the CO2 plot seems to have only one distinct up and
down each year.

I feel the proper way to view GHG effect and the optimum climate
conditions on Earth is to accept that the N2 and O2 warm in daytime, but
cool little at night, reaching a balance where the GHGs radiating in all
directions what they absorb limiting the warming by convection from the
surface in daytime.

And if this has any merit, a little extra CO2 each year should
cool the atmosphere a little more each year, but that small amount of
extra cooling of the atmosphere is overwhelmed by the larger swings in
temperatures caused by El Nino-La Nina and orbital patterns of the sun
and giant planets plus the random natural patterns due to variations in
cloud cover and the resulting changes in evaporation and the wind
patterns and pressure zones.

Basing climate or climate change on such a simplistic trivial
trace gas like CO2 is an adolescent approach to a very complex system.

Foo-Foo:

Coming from a guy who had to have the ideal gas law, insolation on a
sphere, and atmospheric circulation repeatedly explained to him, and even
then wouldn't take the time to understand the physics because he didn't
like the source, your attempts to change tactic here are laughable at
best. Really, you need to leave the skeptic science to people who are idea
men, like Bilbo the Flyboy, who just *knows* it's all water vapor, even
though he hasn't done a calculation in his life because a) you don't need
to do calculations to be a pilot since they got GPS and stuff and b) he's
afraid he'll get the numbers wrong and confuse himself.

All of what you've written above is wrong, if you had a smattering of
science you would actually take the time to calculate the energy budgets.
For example, the outgoing longwave flux is around 400 W/m^2 at 300 K.

From what altitude? IIRC, the effective outgoing radiation level is
somewhere in the upper troposphere, about where the cloud tops are. They
radiate LW, you know.

If the average outgoing LW flux is 400Wm-2, and the incoming average is
~340Wm-2, how would you explain global warming? Can you show your
calculations for such an "energy budget"?

You
would be hard pressed to get anywhere near that number for a convective
flux or a latent heat flux (even combined).

OK, show us your calculations, including the measurements of the source
intensities. Hint: Trenberth only used estimated global precipitation to
determine latent heat transfer. He completely omitted the water cycle in
TS, which repeatedly circulates water and ice up and down, quite
vigorously. He also missed virga, but that's probably not as significant.

http:www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/Radia...

Convection is covered on pdf pages 8 and 9.

BTW, he gets 235Wm-2 outgoing LW, where did you get your number?

Of course, you'll ignore
this advice, and keep talking silliness, just like you do with the
"greenhouse gases cool the atmosphere" argument, which if you were at
all clued in would realize was nonsense. (If what you were arguing were
true, then the temperature profile of the Earth with altitude would
deviate below the adiabatic profile. However, it's above the adiabatic
line, a lot.) Of course, you understand none of what I just said, or
why it's relevant, so I realize I am just talking to the people who do
get it.

Or yourself.

But, like all skeptics, especially the ones on the internet, your
science skills are weak to nonexistent so that, like your pal Capt.
Smith, you believe any little idea that someone feeds you, or pops into
your head, regardless of whether it makes physical sense.

I'm sorry your dislike for me keeps you from understanding how the
atmosphere really works, but then, it's more amusing for me this way, so
I'm not really complaining.

Back to the bad-ass persona already? I think you're just a pussycat with
an image problem.

Haha. BW described BA as a real gentleman as I recall. Now he's
slagging him off (or is this perhaps one of those forged posts.)