On Oct 18, 11:20*am, (Doug Bashford) wrote:
global warming: Compact Oxford English Dictionary
* • noun
*the gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth’s
atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect caused by increased
levels of carbon dioxide, CFCs, and other pollutants.
*http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed...arming?view=uk

That is also about how Encyclopedia Britannica defines it.
Unless the context is geological history, the term
"anthropogenic global warming" (AGW) is redundant.

"AGW" usage on sci.environment was popularized around
15 years ago when many (most?) GW denialists denied ANY GW.
So it was used to distinguish between the arguments.
(Denialists now almost universally admit to historic warming.)
Like Creation Scientists, once irrefutably defeated,
rather than considering discarding the hypothesis,
GW denialists simply come up with a revised,
often contrary argument.

an old saying:

*The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
*The rational change their world view to fit the facts. *

*On 17 Oct 2009, Alan D. McIntire alanmc95210@yahoo said about:
* Global Warming Denialism? ........or is it Creation Science?

On Oct 17, 2:57=A0am, Leonard Pulver Sr. wrote:
Peter Muehlbauer wrote
* All you have to do is prove that science is wrong.

* It's simple.

*Alan D. McIntire wrote:

* * What a stupid statement!! *

Sounds reasonable to me.

Science isn't a THING to believe in ,

Of course it is. A body of knowledge is a thing
one can choose to believe in (to support) or think
is false or invalid. So are activities.
And I thought you were a real sciencey guy, Al! *
As I've been suggesting all along, it seems you
don't even know what Science is. No wonder you think
you are so smart you can out-science Science!
Seemingly you think its just a process any dummy
can ape! *Your sixth grade teacher was wrong, Al.

science *- Compact Oxford English Dictionary
* • noun
*1 the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the
systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical
and natural world through observation and experiment.
*2 a systematically organized body of knowledge on any subject.
*www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/science?view=uk

But you Allen, have done none of the activities, nor
have a systematically organized body of knowledge, do you?

Neither do you, else you would have KNOWN that all educated
people since ancient times , including the hierarchy of the Catholic
Church that tried Galileo, realized that the earth is a sphere, and
you would not have made that stuipid ad hominem attack about
skeptics being "flat earthers".

Note, as I stated previously, that the scientific method is a
process not a belief system. True, most scientific laws work over
normal ranges of velocity, mass, and length, else they wouldn't be
laws, but no one should put absolute faith in any of these laws.
There is a potential Nobel Prize for anyone able to overturn thesee
fundamental laws in experiments using extremes of velocity, mass, and
length. Even the most fundamental laws of physics can be modified.
For instance, it was only in that last century that the long-tested
and believed law of conservation of matter was proved to be not quite
correct.
**********
The general consensus is that a doubling of CO2 would increase
the surface flux by about 3.8 watts. The total flux NOW averages
about 490 watts, 390 in sensible heat, 100 in convection and latent
heat. Assuming that all of that 3.8 watts goes into sensible heat,
a doubling of CO2 would
increase the surface flux from about 390 watts to 393.8 watts. That
implies a temperature
increase of (393.8/390)^0.25 * = 1.0024. Multiply the current
average temperature of about
288K by that 1.0024 and you get a surface temperature increase of
about 0.7 C. Now that's assuming ALL of the increase will go into
sensible heat. In practice, some of that will go into conduction and
convection. Since about 20 % of the current flux is taken up by
conduction and convection, there's no reason to assume that less than
20% of any additional flux would also go into latent heat. That
would leave only 80% of those 3.8 watts = 3.04 watts going into
sensible heat, for a surface temperature increase from a doubling of
CO2 of

(393.04/390)^ 0.25 =1.00194 * 288 K = 288.56 K. A 0.56 K increase in
temperatures with a
doubling of CO2 is hardly something to get excited about, especially
since there would be additional confounding factors such as changes in
surface albedo due cloud cover, and changes in the temperature lapse
rate that would OVERWHELM that 3 watt increase in flux.

Water vapor has a high specific, heat, and exists in all 3 phases over
earth's temperature range. Trying to predict weather and climate is
an exercise in trying to predict the actons of water vapor in
all of its phases. AGW scaremongers assume positive feedback from
water vapor. Anyone
who has spent some time inland, and some time by the ocean in both
winter and summer should be very skeptical of that hypothesis based on
personal experience. There does not apper to be positive feedback
making summers by the ocean warmer than summers inland, there does not
appear to be positive feedback making winters by the ocean colder than
winters inland.

The issue of water vapor feedback was addressed by Christy.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/68739.pdf

It was found that thanks to irrigation, temperatures in the San
Joaquin Valley averaged slightly warmer than they had previously,
with a slight COOLING during the day, and somewhat warmer nights.

- A. McIntire