On Feb 15, 12:20*am, Bill Ward wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:40:14 +0100, Tom P wrote:
Bill Ward wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:19:51 +0100, Tom P wrote:

Benj wrote:
On Feb 13, 11:31 am, Tom P wrote:

Also interesting that they don't even bother to address the key
arguments against AGW.
Specifically, my main problem with climate "science" is its
complete lack of predictive capability. This is not even addressed..
Wrong. Climate science predicts the high temperatures on Venus
extremely well.
ø That is because they are not playing games with the data


Physics works rather well, because it's well tested. *"Climate
science", on the other hand, relies largely on untested, often
untestable, conjectures, assumptions and models, and has thus become
essentially a "cargo cult", in Feynman's terms. *It has become a
punchline, not worthy of mention in the same sentence as physics or
other actual science.

It's the place which proves CO2 is a "greenhouse gas".

ø Only a trace and it can in no way remain in the
atmosphere sans water vapour. Don't believe it
check out Newton.


what you leave unmentioned is that CO2 is 97% of the atmosphere of
Venus and only a trace gas here. So how exactly does this prove that
climate science on EARTH has any predictive value? *

Or terrestrial
CO2 has any significant effects?

ø*Not even one bit.

Who are you trying to fool anyway?
* WV is even more of a trace gas once you leave the earth's surface

ø Tom, Tom, you just posted 2 signs one on front
and rear, they say "IDIOT HERE.
WV is 97+ of the greenhouse and without it
there is no greenhouse.

go up above the cloud level. The concentration of WV in the
stratosphere drops to around 5 ppm, a tiny fraction of the CO2
concentration.

ø I knew you were stupid but I did not expect this.
There is almost no WV beyond the clouds and
without H2O there is no CO2 [Don't dispute
gravity].What water there is comes from jet trails
and you see it falling as it dissipates.

Right. *That means WV radiates from lower, warmer temperatures than
cold CO2, with a clear shot to space.

ø The VW and CO2 rise together from the
warm waters. There is no material feedback.
[Tyndall]
When the clouds meet a cold front it turns
to rain (or snow) and becomes fertilizer.

That means that in the upper troposphere, as the WV concentration sinks
towards zero, CO2 becomes the dominant GHG.

ø Bill - I thought you were smarter than that. See above. The only
CO2 in the troposphere is in the water perhaps as carbonic acid gas.
Without convection it simply rains.

Now you've got it! *CO2 is active only at the low temperatures found at
the top of the atmosphere, while the "optical top" of the WV occurs at
much lower altitudes, and thus higher temperatures. *Since there is
little WV at higher altitudes, the hotter, more energetic radiation has a
clear shot at space. *The warmer, variable energy emitted by WV and cloud
overwhelms the static radiation from the high, cold CO2.


To repeat: the lapse
rate is determined by a compound of a multitude of sins including the
gas laws, convection and the condensation of saturated WV into clouds.

ø A lot of nonsense, "full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing

Actually, I don't think it's all that mysterious, it's just the dry
adiabatic lapse rate corrected for the latent heat of water phase
changes. *The lapse rate in the clear air below cloud base is dry
adiabatic, since there are no phase changes occurring.

ø Nonsense

ø More silly nonsense snipped

—*—
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena