On Oct 23, 1:43 pm, William Asher wrote:
wrote:

This is one of the guys (qzectb), that uses the recievers at the
surface to analyze atmospheric radiation. In order to keep their
funding and favoratism with their high priest, Dancin Hansen, in any
of their studies regardless of the instrument, or the study, they
reach the conclusion that is consistent with Dancin Hansens
contribution to the ICPP and the ICpp's conslusion, that 3.5Wm-2 of
outgoing radiation is returned to the surface due to the increased
TRACE gases caused since the beginnning of industrialization.

They give only limited data from their instruments, but brag about how
much public money they are spending, so therefore you should believe
their unsupported statements.

In Dancin Hansen's most recent paper, June 2007,
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/...sen_etal_2.pdf

he talks considerably about what he calls 'long lived trace gases'. He
attributes a considerable value to the forcing of these trace gases
during the climate changes of the ice ages. Yet his consideration does
not include the supposed, 'feedback', effects of the increasing water
vapor with temperature. He barely mentions water vapor at all, and
gives no quantified values for water vapor. Of the supposed 150Wm-2
required for increase of 33C at 287K, almost all of this must be water
vapor.

It seems that Dancin Hansen knows of the data from these forms of
instruments, in which they cannot quantify the grenhouse effect from
these instruments and water vapor, which can be studied in varying
atmospheric concentrations.

So he is apparently covering his ass, by omitting water vapor from
what he produces to be an important document to the science of
climatology, as only the HIGH priest can deliver. In doing this he
leaves his little Bunnies such as 'qzectb' out on the limb, with their
theoretical format, which must include water vapor, or they must
entirely remodel their grenhouse theory to better fit their data.

Along with his vague quantifications for 1ppm reductions of GTG's, and
his irrational, indirect, and implied scaremongering of methane and
his suggestion that worldwide methane be reduced by 1/3. He doesnot
mention that as a longlived grenhouse gas. Methane in actuallity
decomposes to CO2 in 10 yrs.

Only outside analyses of Hansen's statistics revealed his 'error' that
made it seem that recent years were warmer than the 1930's. His
arrogance and willingness to promote his junk science without
supportive evidence, is clearly exemplified in this paper which was
published before he was caught using his fudged statistics.

He now proposes the propaganda slant, that he is justified in
distorting and falsifying his data due to the inherent value of the
holy mission of the AGW'ists and their cult of profit and
superstition, and that all of the little Bunnies should be proud of
him, for his overzealous attempt to support the cause of AGW.

KDeatherage
The AGWBunnies,
They keep going,,, and going,,,

Dear RoidrAge:

Aren't you the same guy that was hyperventilating because you had
completely misinterpreted the Trenburth et al. paper on estimating the
radiative forcing from greenhouse gases? I'm pretty sure it was you. Let
me see .... Oh yeah, here it is:

http://tinyurl.com/ywu7vc

If you are so completely clueless about something as simple as that, I find
it hard to believe you are saying anything more intelligent now.

Semper furia!

--
Bill Asher-

To divide surface area by four and divide incoming radiation by this
value, is nonsense, if the energy is not instantly transmitted and the
surface area is not exactly the same temperature at alll points. But
mechanically inept idiots like you exist, and thus trenberth has an
his audience of fools and believers.

If you could even do the most basic of physics, you certainly would
not be defending this stupid paper and it's invalid theoretical
curves.

At least this asshole.trenberth, knew better than to put the peak
intensity in the wrong place. But he has a false slope to the
theoretical curve to better fit the premise that certain wavelengths
are 'missing', and to imply an importance for earth radiation at 15um
which does not exists.

Oh by the way, mathematical slug, 1 Wm-2 is enough energy to equate to
the heat capacity of the entire atmosphere and raise it 1C in 120
days. Come on, dillweed, the math is not that hard.

1 joule per second, over surface area of the earth with radius about
6400 kilometers, 4pir^2 your formula for area,
Mass of atmosphere, I think 10^21 grams,
Heat capacity of air, about 29 Joules per mol per degree,
Molar weight of 80% N2 and 20% O2 about 29.

Why can't you chumps ever talk math?
You repeat your little chunk of Wm-2 recital all the time, even
trenberth recognizes that it is 150Wm-2 from 240Wm-2 to 490Wm-2 which
is 57F.

So you idiots think that about 4Wm-2 is 'missing' due to trace gases
because your high priest says so?
This would raise the temperature of the atmosphere !C in 30 days.

Also the actual Boltzman Stefan equation is in ergs and centimeters,.
5.67E-5 ergs,, cm-2, sec-1, degK-4

KDeatherage
The AGWBunnies,
Beating on their drum for their holy war against modern society,
They keep going,,, and going,,,

wrote:

On Oct 23, 1:43 pm, William Asher wrote:
wrote:

This is one of the guys (qzectb), that uses the recievers at the
surface to analyze atmospheric radiation. In order to keep their
funding and favoratism with their high priest, Dancin Hansen, in
any of their studies regardless of the instrument, or the study,
they reach the conclusion that is consistent with Dancin Hansens
contribution to the ICPP and the ICpp's conslusion, that 3.5Wm-2 of
outgoing radiation is returned to the surface due to the increased
TRACE gases caused since the beginnning of industrialization.

They give only limited data from their instruments, but brag about
how much public money they are spending, so therefore you should
believe their unsupported statements.

In Dancin Hansen's most recent paper, June 2007,
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/...sen_etal_2.pdf

he talks considerably about what he calls 'long lived trace gases'.
He attributes a considerable value to the forcing of these trace
gases during the climate changes of the ice ages. Yet his
consideration does not include the supposed, 'feedback', effects of
the increasing water vapor with temperature. He barely mentions
water vapor at all, and gives no quantified values for water vapor.
Of the supposed 150Wm-2 required for increase of 33C at 287K,
almost all of this must be water vapor.

It seems that Dancin Hansen knows of the data from these forms of
instruments, in which they cannot quantify the grenhouse effect
from these instruments and water vapor, which can be studied in
varying atmospheric concentrations.

So he is apparently covering his ass, by omitting water vapor from
what he produces to be an important document to the science of
climatology, as only the HIGH priest can deliver. In doing this he
leaves his little Bunnies such as 'qzectb' out on the limb, with
their theoretical format, which must include water vapor, or they
must entirely remodel their grenhouse theory to better fit their
data.

Along with his vague quantifications for 1ppm reductions of GTG's,
and his irrational, indirect, and implied scaremongering of methane
and his suggestion that worldwide methane be reduced by 1/3. He
doesnot mention that as a longlived grenhouse gas. Methane in
actuallity decomposes to CO2 in 10 yrs.

Only outside analyses of Hansen's statistics revealed his 'error'
that made it seem that recent years were warmer than the 1930's.
His arrogance and willingness to promote his junk science without
supportive evidence, is clearly exemplified in this paper which was
published before he was caught using his fudged statistics.

He now proposes the propaganda slant, that he is justified in
distorting and falsifying his data due to the inherent value of the
holy mission of the AGW'ists and their cult of profit and
superstition, and that all of the little Bunnies should be proud of
him, for his overzealous attempt to support the cause of AGW.

KDeatherage
The AGWBunnies,
They keep going,,, and going,,,

Dear RoidrAge:

Aren't you the same guy that was hyperventilating because you had
completely misinterpreted the Trenburth et al. paper on estimating
the radiative forcing from greenhouse gases? I'm pretty sure it was
you. Let me see .... Oh yeah, here it is:

http://tinyurl.com/ywu7vc

If you are so completely clueless about something as simple as that,
I find it hard to believe you are saying anything more intelligent
now.

Semper furia!

--
Bill Asher-

To divide surface area by four and divide incoming radiation by this
value, is nonsense, if the energy is not instantly transmitted and the
surface area is not exactly the same temperature at alll points. But
mechanically inept idiots like you exist, and thus trenberth has an
his audience of fools and believers.

If you could even do the most basic of physics, you certainly would
not be defending this stupid paper and it's invalid theoretical
curves.

At least this asshole.trenberth, knew better than to put the peak
intensity in the wrong place. But he has a false slope to the
theoretical curve to better fit the premise that certain wavelengths
are 'missing', and to imply an importance for earth radiation at 15um
which does not exists.

Oh by the way, mathematical slug, 1 Wm-2 is enough energy to equate to
the heat capacity of the entire atmosphere and raise it 1C in 120
days. Come on, dillweed, the math is not that hard.

1 joule per second, over surface area of the earth with radius about
6400 kilometers, 4pir^2 your formula for area,
Mass of atmosphere, I think 10^21 grams,
Heat capacity of air, about 29 Joules per mol per degree,
Molar weight of 80% N2 and 20% O2 about 29.

Why can't you chumps ever talk math?
You repeat your little chunk of Wm-2 recital all the time, even
trenberth recognizes that it is 150Wm-2 from 240Wm-2 to 490Wm-2 which
is 57F.

So you idiots think that about 4Wm-2 is 'missing' due to trace gases
because your high priest says so?
This would raise the temperature of the atmosphere !C in 30 days.

Also the actual Boltzman Stefan equation is in ergs and centimeters,.
5.67E-5 ergs,, cm-2, sec-1, degK-4

Clearly, you are a man ahead of your time. Probably nobody has ever
thought of what you are suggesting ever before. What you need to do, and I
mean this sincerely, is write up your results for publication. Nobody is
going to take you seriously, no matter how many obscenities and slurs you
lace into the fabric of your science, unless you get published in the peer-
reviewed literature. A guy of your obvious mental capacities ought to be
able to set all of climate science straight in a couple of well-reasoned
papers.

Don't be afraid of failure, be afraid of trying.

Semper Furia!

--
Bill Asher