On Feb 25, 2:10 pm, William Asher wrote:
wrote there have been advances
in the state of understanding since then (e.g., a paper in 2004 resolved
a lot of the discrepency between CO2 and temperature in the paleo record,
not that it really matters since most people who understand climate,
though who I will admit likely aren't as smart as you, don't think the
paleo record provides much guidance to what is theorized to be happening
today (see quote above).) Anyway, you seem to know a lot more than the
scientists on the IPCC.
l Can you direct me to some of your peer-reviewed
l publications on climate so I can read some correct science that has
a
l higher truthiness factor than what is being used by the IPCC?
After all,
l they probably all learned the stuff they know out of textbooks
written
l after 1960.


http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstract...vin1997_1.html

Here is some of your 'peer reviewed' scientific analyses. This is
nothing but liquid horsehit. But your are willing to swallow it like
wine since it is the basic scientific analyses that will be ruling
your life if AGW is successful. That grown people look at this and
believe it is in any way valid or done by actual theoretical
scientists with their 'peer review', is a testament to the guilability
of people and the inability of the scientific community to objectively
criticise and disgard invalid theoretical science.

One point of the complete stupidity of this depiction, is that it says
the atmosphere is radiating 324W, back to the surface. The incident
solar raditation is only 168W.

Yet the theoretical Phobiacs claim continually that O2 and N2 do not
absorb infrared radiation. So the water vapor which is about 2.5%
and the CO2 which is 4/10,000, are responsible for this 324Wm-2??

It surely cannot be the thermal motion of the O2 and N2 transfering
this energy to the surface. A sphere of air would have the diameter of
24.00 cm. Radiating luminosity in one direction, 14.7W at 324Wm-2.
This is 14.7Joules per second. The heat capacity of this mole is about
29 Joules/mol/deg. So every 2 seconds the heat capacity for one degree
of the air would have to be transfered to the earth from the air next
to it for this energy to be transferred from the air by thermal
contact. This defies any known analyses of the air and surface and
convection.

So how does the atmosphere radiate 324Wm-2 back to the surface when
the 'radiative forcing of water vapour is 75 W·m-2, while for carbon
dioxide it is 32 W·m-2. """The longwave radiative forcing of the
climate system for both clear (125 W·m-2) and cloudy (155 W·m-2)""
It is the 2% water vapor and negligible CO2 concentrations????
What is forcing the other 170Watts of the atmosphere?????
Remember, N2 and O2 do not absorb IR in this theory. Or does it matter
that the theory is conhesive at all??
The 236Wm-2 that supposedly makes the 255K temperature which is then
bolstered by grenhouse gases to 287, would not describe this average
temperature.
The temperature described by the average of the energies is not the
same as the average temperatures because energy is a fourth power to
temperature.

Thus the average temperature of 287K cannot be achieved by the
radiative forcing of 125Wm-2 or 155Wm-2.
This diagram depicts a complete failure in calculating averages and
values for energy and temperature.

But who needs math when you got cute little peer reviewed diagrams
like this???

Peer review accepts this charlatan fraud.

And then it is claimed that 40Wm-2 passes back through the air without
being absorbed. This is important to this false theory because it
allows the radiation to be trapped by the net increase of 100ppm of
CO2. This goes with the other needed false point that you must depict
an effect from existing 'grenhouse gases', to justify the hysteria at
the very minute concentration increases.

Valid science can PROVE this to be false theory.

The fact is that the energy that reaches the surface and is absorbed,
is transfered back through the atmosphere to space and determines the
temperature of the atmosphere. The atmosphere does not determine the
temperature of the surface as is needed for this fraudulent theory.
The fact that there are those on the public payroll at NASA who claim
to be scientists and cannot objectively analyse this diagram, does not
mean this diagram is valid. It is just proof of the invalidity of many
degrees in science and the pervasivness of the propaganda and
indoctrination of 'grenhouse theory' within the theoretical sciences
and the suppression of valid theoretical science within the 'peer'
review of the charlatans that dominate theoretical science.

Any such laws passed based on this invalid science will go directly to
federal court as unconstitutional. Secondly they should go to criminal
court for prosecution of the relevant crimes.

Deatherage

wrote:

On Feb 25, 2:10 pm, William Asher wrote:
wrote there have been advances
in the state of understanding since then (e.g., a paper in 2004
resolved a lot of the discrepency between CO2 and temperature in the
paleo record, not that it really matters since most people who
understand climate, though who I will admit likely aren't as smart as
you, don't think the paleo record provides much guidance to what is
theorized to be happening today (see quote above).) Anyway, you seem
to know a lot more than the scientists on the IPCC.
l Can you direct me to some of your peer-reviewed
l publications on climate so I can read some correct science that has
a
l higher truthiness factor than what is being used by the IPCC?
After all,
l they probably all learned the stuff they know out of textbooks
written
l after 1960.


http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstract...vin1997_1.html

Here is some of your 'peer reviewed' scientific analyses. This is
nothing but liquid horsehit. But your are willing to swallow it like
wine since it is the basic scientific analyses that will be ruling
your life if AGW is successful. That grown people look at this and
believe it is in any way valid or done by actual theoretical
scientists with their 'peer review', is a testament to the guilability
of people and the inability of the scientific community to objectively
criticise and disgard invalid theoretical science.

One point of the complete stupidity of this depiction, is that it says
the atmosphere is radiating 324W, back to the surface. The incident
solar raditation is only 168W.

Yet the theoretical Phobiacs claim continually that O2 and N2 do not
absorb infrared radiation. So the water vapor which is about 2.5%
and the CO2 which is 4/10,000, are responsible for this 324Wm-2??

It surely cannot be the thermal motion of the O2 and N2 transfering
this energy to the surface. A sphere of air would have the diameter of
24.00 cm. Radiating luminosity in one direction, 14.7W at 324Wm-2.
This is 14.7Joules per second. The heat capacity of this mole is about
29 Joules/mol/deg. So every 2 seconds the heat capacity for one degree
of the air would have to be transfered to the earth from the air next
to it for this energy to be transferred from the air by thermal
contact. This defies any known analyses of the air and surface and
convection.

So how does the atmosphere radiate 324Wm-2 back to the surface when
the 'radiative forcing of water vapour is 75 W·m-2, while for carbon
dioxide it is 32 W·m-2. """The longwave radiative forcing of the
climate system for both clear (125 W·m-2) and cloudy (155 W·m-2)""
It is the 2% water vapor and negligible CO2 concentrations????
What is forcing the other 170Watts of the atmosphere?????
Remember, N2 and O2 do not absorb IR in this theory. Or does it matter
that the theory is conhesive at all??
The 236Wm-2 that supposedly makes the 255K temperature which is then
bolstered by grenhouse gases to 287, would not describe this average
temperature.
The temperature described by the average of the energies is not the
same as the average temperatures because energy is a fourth power to
temperature.

Thus the average temperature of 287K cannot be achieved by the
radiative forcing of 125Wm-2 or 155Wm-2.
This diagram depicts a complete failure in calculating averages and
values for energy and temperature.

But who needs math when you got cute little peer reviewed diagrams
like this???

Peer review accepts this charlatan fraud.

And then it is claimed that 40Wm-2 passes back through the air without
being absorbed. This is important to this false theory because it
allows the radiation to be trapped by the net increase of 100ppm of
CO2. This goes with the other needed false point that you must depict
an effect from existing 'grenhouse gases', to justify the hysteria at
the very minute concentration increases.

Valid science can PROVE this to be false theory.

The fact is that the energy that reaches the surface and is absorbed,
is transfered back through the atmosphere to space and determines the
temperature of the atmosphere. The atmosphere does not determine the
temperature of the surface as is needed for this fraudulent theory.
The fact that there are those on the public payroll at NASA who claim
to be scientists and cannot objectively analyse this diagram, does not
mean this diagram is valid. It is just proof of the invalidity of many
degrees in science and the pervasivness of the propaganda and
indoctrination of 'grenhouse theory' within the theoretical sciences
and the suppression of valid theoretical science within the 'peer'
review of the charlatans that dominate theoretical science.

Any such laws passed based on this invalid science will go directly to
federal court as unconstitutional. Secondly they should go to criminal
court for prosecution of the relevant crimes.

Deatherage


Calm down a bit. I think the problem is you are misinterpreting one of
Trenburth's figures (Figure 2, the greenhouse effect) and his statement
that the "greenhouse effect" is 155 W/m^2. What Figure 2 shows and what
that 155 W/m^2 represent, are not the total downwelling longwave flux, but
the energy that stays in the atmosphere from the longwave flux from the
surface. In other words, it is the difference between the blackbody flux
from the surface of the planet assuming a temperature of 15 C and the
radiative flux out of the top of the atmosphere. It is not a plot of the
total downwelling longwave flux, that would be calculated using a radiative
emission/transfer model for the downwelling radiation. The way to think of
what Trenburth is saying is that the Earth puts heat into the atmosphere,
that is the greenhouse effect Trenburth is talking about and why the
atmosphere is warmer than it should be simply taking into account simple
radiative transfer, and then the warmer atmosphere reradiates more LW
energy back to the surface (i.e., if the atmosphere were only N2 and O2, it
would be a lot colder and the downwelling radiative flux would likely be
equal to the *difference* between the 325 number and the 155 greenhouse
forcing (except I think it is complicated by the fact that the upwelling
number would be lower in the absence of the greenhouse gases)). Anyway, if
you integrate Figure 2 you get around 150 W/m^2 total *UPWARD* longwave
flux to the atmosphere, which is pretty close to Trenburth's number of 155
and probably more related to my patience in digitizing the stupid figure
than a reflection of the accuracy of Trenburth's number. He doesn't ever
calculate the total downwelling LW flux, he just states it in the figure.

It's a subtle point, but really, this science is pretty much rock solid if
you take the time to figure out what the people who really know it cold are
saying. A lot of this is terminology, where "greenhouse effect" to someone
like Trenburth has a precise scientific meaning and you may associate it
with a different meaning that is at odds with Trenburth's. But in a
technical and scientific sense, Trenburth's definition and usage is more
accurate and correct. If you want, I can send you a PDF of the article
from BAMS this comes from. It's pretty accessible to a general audience,
but you're going to have to calm down to figure it out. If you read it
angry, well, you won't get it.

There simply aren't huge scientific holes in the theory of climate. There
are pieces, some major, that are imprecisely understood at present (e.g.,
the various indirect radiative aerosol effects), but there aren't any parts
of it that are missing.

Let me know if you want a copy of the original article. You might actually
learn something. Or not. Beats the **** out of me.

--
Bill Asher