On Apr 5, 5:02*pm, Tom P wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 4, 5:45 pm, Tom P wrote:
Bill Ward wrote:
On Sat, 04 Apr 2009 11:52:18 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:
Bill Ward wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:09:15 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:
Bill Ward wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 08:53:22 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:
Mr Right wrote:
On Apr 3, 5:29 pm, qqq_qqq wrote:
oonbz wrote:
April 1 2009
ACCORDING to the IPCC any direct temperature rise from increasing
carbon dioxide levels is greatly amplified by positive feedback
from water vapour. As the theory goes, rising carbon dioxide
levels from human activity causes some temperature rise which
causes more water to evaporate.
Because water vapour is the dominant greenhouse gas, the
additional water vapour absorbs even more energy, so global
temperatures rise even, more causing still more water to
evaporate and so on in an amplifying spiral. *In this way the
roughly half degree direct impact from doubling carbon dioxide is
claimed to be amplified to three degrees or more. An interesting
theory, but now consider the following scenario; We know the
earth rotates about an axis tilted about 23 degrees relative to
the sun. *This is what causes the seasons and what sets the
Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. *Imagine a location on the
Tropic of Capricorn (23 degrees south) - say Mackay in
Queensland. In summer the sun is directly overhead - average
solar input of around 310 watts/sq meter. In winter the sun is at
maximum elevation 44 degrees - average solar input of around 220
watts/sq meter.
That is a difference summer to winter of about 90 watts/sq meter
which, according to Stefan's law, without any feedbacks would
give a temperature difference summer to winter of about 16
degrees. The amount of positive or amplifying feedback claimed by
the IPCC would inflate that about 6 times to more than 90 degrees
C, extinguishing all life in Mackay.
Our merchant of filth Bonzo speaks again.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
Q
--
The only thing to fear is invisible stupidity.
Our merchant of filth Bonzo speaks again.
Q demonstrates his complete lack of science yet again.
Why not respond to the argument, rather than attack the person.
Is an ad hominem attack all that you have?
Bonzo was showing crap, and I wanted to explain this.
Q doesn't understand enough physics to explain. *Q can only slime.
How frustrated Q must be.
Mackay simply misinterprets the radiative forcing, and Bonzo was happy
to cite this crap.
Note that Q can't explain exactly how Mackay (a place, not a person),
"misinterprets the radiative forcing", because he can't think for
himself. *All he can do is parrot what he's told with no understanding.
You don't have to understand much about the problem to see that Michael
Hammer is talking crap. He is applying a climate sensitivity factor
which is relevant for a climate discussion to a weather problem.
The IPCC climate sensitivity factor (the 1,5 W/m^2 extra forcing for
increasing greenhouse gases and more alike, see figure 2.4 in report
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...yr/ar4_syr.pdf) applies to
an long term average temperature CO2 relation rather than a short term
weather phenomenon.
Note that Q can't explain his assumption, he simply asserts it as a
fact. *AIUI, the "forcing" from CO2 is determined by models which
initially assume CO2 forcing, then try to estimate it by tuning model
parameters to match historical weather/climate periods. Complex, yes, but
about as convincing as reading chicken entrails. *Q simply parrots what
he's told, with a simple, childlike faith. *
In figure 4.2 you see a change in the flux from 1750
to 2005 which corresponds to about 1 degree centigrade change in the
global mean temperature. In other words, 1.5 W/m^2 is equal to 1 degree
if you look at temperatures that are averaged over periods of like 5
year. The climate sensitivity is therefore 1/1.5 = 0.67 degree C m^2 /
W.
The change in the flux is assumed from the change in the estimated CO2
levels. *There were in 1750, and are now, no direct methods of measuring
"forcing".
Now Michael Hammer says, Winter Summer forcing difference is 90 W/m^2 in
Queensland, so we should be seeing 90*0.67 = 60 degrees centigrade
whereas in reality one sees only 16 degrees Winter Summer difference in
Queensland. (For some reason Michael Hammer did it even wrong, his
climate sensitivity factor is 1 C m^2 / W) I call this Michael Hammer
reasoning a gross manipulation with numbers, because the 0.67 degree C
m^2 / W does not apply to a weather phenomenon.
Why doesn't Q explain why not? *Forcing is forcing. *CO2 concentrations
change during the year, what keeps the forcing from that CO2 from
affecting temperatures? *The OP is critiquing the assumption of positive
water feedbacks necessary to make the climate models scary enough. *The
assumed WV feedbacks depend on temperature, no matter what causes it.
Why doesn't Michael
Hammer yell that we should be seeing a 290K temperature diffence between
day and night since the forcing of the Sun after sunset is by definition
0 W/m^2. Michael Hammer decided to dilute the discussion by looking at
Winter Summer temperatures. Winter Summer and Day Night temperatures are
affected by convection etc. which is what you normally model in a
meteorologic model. Even if you would turn the Sun off for a while then
the Earth doesn't cool off to 0 K, there are oceans with warm water,
there are winds, and the combination of both will keep the temperatures
for quite a while above 0 K.
Q provides a strawman, not an explanation.
In a climate model you seek the relation between a long average seen in
meteorologic models that apply to an Earth as we know it and changes in
long averages in the forcing which could include greenhouse gas changes,
or earth orbit parameter changes. In this case you can already
approximate the change in forcing related to a change in greenhouse gas
concentrations by studying the radiative transfer problem. Increase CO2
by 100 ppmv as we have seen since 1750, and the forcing will change by
about 1.5 W/m^2. This delta flux will not occur at the surface of the
Earth, instead the peak in the forcing will happen at the tropopause
which is about 20 km above the surface. This is a second reason why
Michael Hammer is talking complete bugger.
It looks as if Q has no idea what the discussion is about, as he never
even mentions the main point, water feedbacks. *He does, at least
implicitly, recognize that the "forcings" are derived from climate
models, and are not actual measured values. *That shifts his comments
from simply ignorant to deliberately deceitful. *Is that an improvement?
Bill boy knew this already but decided to try once again the usual AGW
deniers trick "let's ask a lot of redundant questions, let's try to
dilute the debate, maybe we can plant an easter egg so that we get some
media attention against these ugly carbon taxes that original from the
great evildoers at the IPCC".
For some reason, Q hates questions that show his ignorance. *He always
whines.
It simply does not work with a bit of...
Did Q die while he was dictating? *;-)
What would we do for entertainment without him?
Q's explanation is correct, I couldn't be bothered to put the time and
effort into explaining why Bozo's cut&paste garbage is wrong.

•• You can not be more wrong, and you are too
* * lazy or incompetent to demonstrate how you
* * believe Bonzo's facts are false.

Bonzo? Facts?

••* I love it when lazy-loo alarmists are stuck
* * for words.

yes but... Bonzo says that the earth is cooling, whereas Dr Habibullo
Abdussamatov says Mars is getting warmer. Please explain why the earth
is getting colder, while Mars is getting warmer. Please do not tell me
you can't be bothered to explain.

••*Tom is regressing into childhood asking
infantile questions.

••*Earth and Mars are on different climate cycles.

- -
The evidence from Mars destroys the notion that
humans are responsible for warming Earth. Mars
has global warming, but without a greenhouse
and without the participation of Martians.
Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov
marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/pressreleases/20031208a.html