On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:05:13 -0800, Dawlish wrote:

On Dec 10, 5:44Â*pm, Bill Ward wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:25:38 -0800, Dawlish wrote:
On Dec 10, 2:54Â*pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:

Stan and Dawlish

You may tell me what you want, CO2 has nothing, absolutely nothing,
to do with global warming.

Not much use responding with well-respected and cross-referenced
temperature data from the last century then that shows that the world
has warmed?

Of course not. Â*No one is claiming that climate never changes. Â*It's
the contribution of CO2 that's in question. Â*You need to show a
credible mechanism by which CO2 could affect temperature in the
presence of an excess of water.

.....................this whole AGW quack obviously a lie.

So many deluded peole and so few that really *know* the truth.

You need to "show" the truth, not just "know" the truth. Â*There's a
difference.

CO2 levels have never varied; solar radiative forcings have an effect
but haven't had any effect over the last 2 years; implications that
temperature rises since the last ice age have something to do with
present GW; I have to give in with you Peter. CO2 has absolutely
nothing to do with global warming.

Don't you ever ask yourself why so many scientists feel that it has?

Lucrative grants?

Oh come on Bill, That's not fair to so many conscientious and decent
scientists. That simply is not the norm.

Only in "climate science".

So far, the responses from denialists have been:

a) The established physics are wrong: fair enough, you may think that,
but you really would think that so many physicists over the last century
would have produced a changed and accepted alternative theory by now, so
I find that point of view very difficult to accept.

You refuse to learn the background information to understand the
physics. That disqualifies your opinion.

b) The data is wrong, or has been altered: 5 sets of climate data all
agreeing make that highly unlikely.

They are not independent.

c) The atmosphere will take longer than 2 years to lose all the heat
gathered over the last 100 years of "doubled" solar activity: that
cannot be true as the atmosphere reacts far more quickly than that to
changes in ENSO. Heat from the sun is not some kind of special heat that
takes longer to disperse!

Irrelevant to CO2 heating the surface.

d) Greenhouse gases cause cooling: sorry, but that's just not true. CO2
has a complex absoption spectrum, but it is a strong absorber of IR
radiation. More CO2 = more absoption and warming. Accepted fact (by
nearly everyone).

Anything that absorbs radiation must also emit radiation - Kirchoff's
law. That means GHG's are the only way the atmosphere can radiate and
cool, as I've already explained.

e) There is a theory that CO2 has always been at pretty much the same
concentrations: there's a theory that the earth is flat and that condoms
have microscopic holes that allow the AIDS virus through. Both are
almost certainly untrue, as is this

Irrelevant and a bit goofy. Stay away from Lloyd.

f) Measured temperatures are stil within the "normal limits" since the
Holocene. Whatever has happened prior to the Industrial Revolution
cannot be compared to what has happened since, because of the increase
in CO2 and because of the massive increases in population. Variations in
global temperatures now, however "small" will cause social impacts far
greater than changes to post ice-age nomadic societies.

Repeated assertion is not convincing. You need to show some logic
somewhere.

g) "Dismissed". Well, go tell that to Copenhagen and especially to
leaders of LEDCs whose land surface is low-lying.

Irrelevant to CO2 heating the surface.

Lots of denialist ideas, but, typically, no consensus amongst them and
nothing that addresses directly my assertion that given the present
state of "natural influences" (negative) it ought to be cooler than it
is. Every denialist knows they are right, but they can't agree on why
and can't produce a convincing single agument that shows that CO2 is not
the main driver of global temperature increases.

You show no logical support for your assertion. An explanation is
required.

The denialist point of view, expressed here, is just wholly unconvincing
- and I'm someone who is prepared to be convinced. Bill's point of view
about the physics and the feedbacks could be reasonable, but there are
so many scientists working in this field that I cannot believe that the
physicists involved haven't realised what he has. The "Lucrative
grants?" bit is received wisdom, nut in any way the norm.

Failure to understand is not a credible rebuttal.

Bill Ward wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:05:13 -0800, Dawlish wrote:

On Dec 10, 5:44 pm, Bill Ward wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:25:38 -0800, Dawlish wrote:
On Dec 10, 2:54 pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Stan and Dawlish
You may tell me what you want, CO2 has nothing, absolutely nothing,
to do with global warming.
Not much use responding with well-respected and cross-referenced
temperature data from the last century then that shows that the world
has warmed?
Of course not. No one is claiming that climate never changes. It's
the contribution of CO2 that's in question. You need to show a
credible mechanism by which CO2 could affect temperature in the
presence of an excess of water.

.....................this whole AGW quack obviously a lie.
So many deluded peole and so few that really *know* the truth.
You need to "show" the truth, not just "know" the truth. There's a
difference.

CO2 levels have never varied; solar radiative forcings have an effect
but haven't had any effect over the last 2 years; implications that
temperature rises since the last ice age have something to do with
present GW; I have to give in with you Peter. CO2 has absolutely
nothing to do with global warming.
Don't you ever ask yourself why so many scientists feel that it has?
Lucrative grants?
Oh come on Bill, That's not fair to so many conscientious and decent
scientists. That simply is not the norm.

Only in "climate science".
So far, the responses from denialists have been:

a) The established physics are wrong: fair enough, you may think that,
but you really would think that so many physicists over the last century
would have produced a changed and accepted alternative theory by now, so
I find that point of view very difficult to accept.

You refuse to learn the background information to understand the
physics. That disqualifies your opinion.
b) The data is wrong, or has been altered: 5 sets of climate data all
agreeing make that highly unlikely.

They are not independent.

c) The atmosphere will take longer than 2 years to lose all the heat
gathered over the last 100 years of "doubled" solar activity: that
cannot be true as the atmosphere reacts far more quickly than that to
changes in ENSO. Heat from the sun is not some kind of special heat that
takes longer to disperse!

Irrelevant to CO2 heating the surface.

d) Greenhouse gases cause cooling: sorry, but that's just not true. CO2
has a complex absoption spectrum, but it is a strong absorber of IR
radiation. More CO2 = more absoption and warming. Accepted fact (by
nearly everyone).

Anything that absorbs radiation must also emit radiation - Kirchoff's
law. That means GHG's are the only way the atmosphere can radiate and
cool, as I've already explained.
e) There is a theory that CO2 has always been at pretty much the same
concentrations: there's a theory that the earth is flat and that condoms
have microscopic holes that allow the AIDS virus through. Both are
almost certainly untrue, as is this

Irrelevant and a bit goofy. Stay away from Lloyd.

f) Measured temperatures are stil within the "normal limits" since the
Holocene. Whatever has happened prior to the Industrial Revolution
cannot be compared to what has happened since, because of the increase
in CO2 and because of the massive increases in population. Variations in
global temperatures now, however "small" will cause social impacts far
greater than changes to post ice-age nomadic societies.

Repeated assertion is not convincing. You need to show some logic
somewhere.

g) "Dismissed". Well, go tell that to Copenhagen and especially to
leaders of LEDCs whose land surface is low-lying.

Irrelevant to CO2 heating the surface.
Lots of denialist ideas, but, typically, no consensus amongst them and
nothing that addresses directly my assertion that given the present
state of "natural influences" (negative) it ought to be cooler than it
is. Every denialist knows they are right, but they can't agree on why
and can't produce a convincing single agument that shows that CO2 is not
the main driver of global temperature increases.

You show no logical support for your assertion. An explanation is
required.

The denialist point of view, expressed here, is just wholly unconvincing
- and I'm someone who is prepared to be convinced. Bill's point of view
about the physics and the feedbacks could be reasonable, but there are
so many scientists working in this field that I cannot believe that the
physicists involved haven't realised what he has. The "Lucrative
grants?" bit is received wisdom, nut in any way the norm.

Failure to understand is not a credible rebuttal.


Bill's distorted physics picks up again on day 22 and counting without
any iota of evidence that man-made global warming does not exist.

Q

--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd

On Dec 11, 12:53*am, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article 4d6cb661-317f-45a8-840e-d5f746599fc6
@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com,
says...

Correct. *The sides and bottom are in LTE optically thick
air, so no net
radiation occurs.

I didn't ask about "net" radiation, but I'm sure you are aware of
that. So let's try again. Clouds radiate from the top, but not from
the sides or the bottom?

Where did he say that? I can't find what you are referring to.

I can only suggest you re-read the thread, paying particular attention
from post #11 onwards.

On Dec 11, 8:01*am, Bill Ward wrote:

Failure to understand is not a credible rebuttal.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill, I could say exactly the same. You feel that you are the only one
that really understands and you show that through your occasional
writings in this newsgroup. Over the last century so many physicists
have looked at this and the basic physics have not changed. CO2
absorbs IR radiation - OK, a complex spectrum (though not as complex
as H2O) - but it absorbs energy, re-radiating it, in all directions,
to warm the atmosphere. You seem to have a different solution and
you'd like to dismiss anyone who doesn't talk the same language as you
do.

I can't be an expert on everything and I don't claim to be. Nor can
anyone else. Nor are you. I read papers by others better qualified
than me. You do too. However, I am good at assessing probablilities
and likelihoods. The probability of you being correct and almost all
other scientists that have been involved in atmospheric physics being
wrong is highly unlikely. If you can't see that, it shows that you are
a long way from having any kind of understanding of probability.
Hence, it is highly likely that you are wrong and thus highly likely
that the view held by the vast majority is correct. (Never, ever,
would I call your views outright wrong, though the likelihood is that
they are).

I'm still not seeing any decent explanation of why the atmosphere is
not colder, given that the oft-quoted "natural cycles" are presently
in a state which ought to mean that it should *be* colder at present
and not the last 6 months sitting on the record as being extremely
warm compared to the last 130 years (and remember, my original
analysis of monthly temps went back 5 years - 30% of months being in
the top 2 warmest in 180 years - and I could extend that back 30-50
years, and show similar results - that's why the graph of temp against
time curves upwards).

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:19:13 +0100, Tom P wrote:

I M @ good guy wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:24:56 +0100, Tom P wrote:

I M @ good guy wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:14:41 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:

On Dec 10, 1:00 pm, "Stan" wrote:
"I M @ good guy" wrote in messagenewsfq1i5taabqfsl4nrlcst0bjh907pc1tpe@4ax .com...
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:57:22 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:
On Dec 10, 10:56 am, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
AGW has to be
based on more than the simplistic assumption
that CO2 increases causes temperature increases.
Obviously it is. CO2 increases will cause temperature increases
unless other (natural) factors override the increase which is being
caused by increasing CO2. The physics behind that was settled over a
century ago. Pumping more CO2 in the earth's atmosphere *will*
increase absorption of outgoing IR radiation and it will cause
warming. That is accepted by almost all climate scientists and
physicists and whether you like it, or not, it is. The greenhouse
effect is well understood and the physics behind it really are
settled. The degree of warming that will be caused caused by
increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is also settled,
unless you wish to change those physical laws.
GHGs are what cool the atmosphere, and
all the scientists think the minor trace gas is
what warms the atmosphere?
Scientists I know don't seem to think this, although they do say that some
of the minor gases have a potential greater green house effect. Can you
please give me some links so I can read up? (Not that I doubt you but I know
several people can read same article and all come up with different
conclusions due to selective reading, and may not realise they are doing it,
see my reply to article on greenhouse effect on Mars)

Also my earlier point regarding graph is that the time scale at bottom is
not even but they are evenly spaced. But I agree about your point regarding
too small to catch the peaks and troughs etc.

That brings me to the point of my original post. Given that the
physics is settled, why isn't the earth cooler than it presently is,
given that two of the major natural varients (PDO and Solar output)
are in a state that ought to mean that they are having a negative
effect on temperatures - which they clearly aren't? They should be
causing cooling and we should not be experiencing some of the warmest
conditions in 130 years - unless the natural effects are *not*
managing to override the effects of CO2; which logically leaves CO2 as
the main driver of global temperature increase. Unless I (and also the
vast majority of climate scientists) see something else affecting
global temperatures in a greater way than the physics shows the
increases in CO2 should, I'm more likely to strengthen my views on CO2
being the cause of GW, than not.
Why isn't it cooler? Maybe if the methods
and weather stations used 50 years ago would
show more cooling, but if you are cock-sure,
no sense in exploring any possible explanations.
I agree with Dawlish here, the sun is at a solar Minimum and global climate
should be showing, even with global warming, global average temperature
heading towards a trough, although with global warming I would expect the
min of the trough to be slightly higher than last trough.

However with 1998 as starting point there was a slight dip followed by
rising i.e. almost steady Taking out the 1998 blip, temperatures have only
slowed down in the general rising, and look like they are starting to speed
up again.

Note to Dawlish and good.guy try and keep tone friendly even if you disagree
on this. Debate can be fun even if you think other guy is talking a load of
rubbish.

I agree entirely with your remarks on keeping the tone reasonable,
Stan, even when so many scientists are tarred with a "nucase" brush
they simply don't deserve.

I don't even believe fully that CO2 is the main driver for GW; I just
think, on the basis of evidence, that it is likely to be - unlike guy,
who even denies the science and says that GHGs *cool* the atmosphere.
Well, I'll just point out again that the vast majority (and I make no
apology for using that term again, as it is true) of climate
scientists and physicists would regard that as twaddle. Not just me,
guy, but almost everyone else.

You're joking aren't you?

If not, state what you (and the scientists
and physicists) think cools the atmosphere
after the sun warms it, the outgoing energy
has to equal the incoming.

[[Please note: I do not call rational scientists
names, it is the foul mouthed idiots posting
in alt.global-warming nonsense about absolute
certainty in AGW]]


Ok, here we go - the temperature at which the earth is in radiative
equilibrium with the incoming solar energy is around -20°c.

How is the facts of that statement derived,
is that minus 20 C?


This is the
temperature of the atmosphere at an altitude of around 6km - I have to
say "around", because this varies by latitude, but for the sake of
simplicity if we are going to get anywhere in the discussion, we have to
stick to averages and approximations.

To get anywhere in the science, specifics
are needed, not estimates of averages and guess
approximations.


So, at this altitude, we can say for simplicities sake that the LWR is
being emitted by the GHGs in the atmosphere at this altitude.


Sorry, LWIR can be leaving the Earth from
a lot of different levels at the same time.


(There is
also a component that gets through from the surface directly in certain
spectral bands, which we leave aside).


It is between 10 and 20 percent, a little too
much to leave aside.


That means that in a very
strange sense of the word, GHGs "cool" the atmosphere.


Not a strange sense at all, without GHGs,
the N2 and O2 could not cool much at all.



It's an
expression that denialists (sorry, sceptics) are fond of using even if
it doesn't really mean anything.


No, it is the basic physics, the only thing
that cools the atmosphere.

It's like saying that if I wear an
anorak, the anorak "cools" me because my body heat ultimately can only
escape from the surface of the anorak...


If your anorak had the properties of nitrogen,
you would have to open it up or have a heat stroke.


That aside, the next thing to note is that the temperature at the
surface is always higher than the temperature at the -20°c level as a
result of the Lapse Rate.


Not as a result of the Lapse Rate, partly
because of the sun and partly because heat
is migrating from the center of the Earth.

Heat flux from the earth's core is egligible. Do a little research
before making such statements.


The temperature of the surface (and when I say
surface I mean the solid or liquid surface, not the
air one or two meters above the surface) is not
necessarily related to the outgoing flux, sunshine
is a factor, air temperature is a factor, and snow
cover insulates against outgoing radiation.

The average temperature one meter below
the surface may be about 50 or 60 F, but on a
clear night a thin layer may cool 20 or 30 degrees.

And gravity and the mass of the atmosphere
is what causes the Lapse Rate.

Correct! It's called the hydrostatic equation.


While using an equivalent temperature
level may have a use in approximations, it
has no bearing on reality and the physics.

Interesting statement. Perhaps you should tell that to a meteorologist.


"Tell" is not the right word, this is a discussion
group, not a classroom or lecture hall, I suppose
at least one or two meteorologists have read it.

I first saw isobar maps being drawn by hand
in 1946, there were no computers, no local radar,
teletype was probably the main way to distribute
information, so I appreciate the gains made in
accuracy of forecasts 3 to 7 days out.

That still doesn't qualify the data, either
predicted or recorded, as accurate enough to
work specific physics problems.

I also appreciate the value of estimates
and approximations, I use them all the time,
even to get answers within a factor of one,
which is not good physics, but at times still
useful.

The Lapse Rate is a consequence of the hydrostatic equation and the
gas laws. This is basic physics. The exact amount depends on the amount
of water vapour in the atmosphere, but this again is limited by the
Clausius-Clapeyron equation, which in turn is derived from the
fundamental physics of thermodynamics.


A lapse rate can exist without water vapor,
I assume you meant the amount or rate of LWIR
depends mostly on water vapor.

Assume what you like, that's not what I said.

What you said didn't make sense to me,
if you were making a statement about differences
in lapse rate with varying humidity, sorry, I just
didn't get it.


Now, the important thing to note is that the composition of GHGs at
this altitude is not the same as the surface. At the surface, the higher
temperature allows water vapour to exist in large quantities measurable
in percentages. As we go up higher in the atmosphere, the temperature
drop (lapse rate) causes the maximum water vapour content to drop
dramatically. Again, the relationship between temperature and saturation
vapour pressure is determined by Clausius-Clapeyron. That means that at
6km altitude, instead of being the overwhelming GHG ,water vapour is
less than 10 times the concentration of CO2 - still higher than CO2, but
with the result that changes in the CO2 concentration are by no means
negligible, but have a direct effect on the overall greenhouse gas
effect.


And I will admit not much LWIR makes it
to space from exactly that altitude.
What is that supposed to mean?


Note we are talking about the MAXIMUM concentration possible of
water vapour - at any moment, the actual concentration can be even lower.


I suppose the lower in the atmosphere,
the more strict the Local Temperature Equilibrium.

I submit that the GHGs alone could not
hold enough heat to prevent the temperature
from dropping more at night.

The thermal inertia of the atmosphere is around 8 days, I have a
reference in a textbook somewhere, I'm travelling right now.

Are you in Copenhagen? :-)

Eight days seems short, maybe that is just
for the atmosphere with GHGs, surely it is not for
the biosphere, note that evaporation is even not
directly a function of temperature, I am guessing
the oceans would be evaporating faster if the air
were colder while the water is still warm.

At higher altitudes the GHGs radiate more
to space than reaches low altitudes,

what does that mean?

What it says, I just began to appreciate Local
Thermodynamic Equilibrium recently, I was
wrestling with the issue of almost no lateral or
horizontal thermal transfer by LWIR, there can
be 30 or 40 degrees difference in temperature
at locations only 100 miles apart, and at the
speed of light, even in the atmosphere, I would
have thought there should be some equalization
at that distance, but LTE probably can explain
my inability to understand.

So I assume that downward radiation is
modified by LTE more than upper atmosphere
LWIR to space.


trying to deny
that GHGs cool the atmosphere does not help the
AGW premise in the least.

Regardless of how these processes result
in retention of heat in the atmosphere, cooling
of the atmosphere is done totally and only
by the GreenHouse Gases.


? GHGs are also the reason why the atmosphere warms in the first place,


I am aware that is the premise used by many
if not most, and it is also the gossip and outhouse
rumor talk, but if the literature is read with a nose
for the difference between atmosphere with GHGs
and atmosphere, it may be found that atmosphere
has an effect even without GHGs.
Anybody that is not willing to explore that
has no business discussing what warms the Earth.
A big part of the warming of the atmosphere
at lower altitudes is contact and convection from
the surface, sunshine is rather slow in warming
the atmosphere by absorption of sunshine directly.

which you neglect to mention.


I haven't seen much said about UV absorption
by GHGs in the troposphere, and not even much
about visible light absorption, and not much focus
on IR absorption from sunlight.

Please explain exactly what you mean by
this statement,

I mean that the only way the atmosphere
is cooled is by LWIR radiation to space, and since
no part of the atmosphere other than GHGs
radiate much LWIR to space, then it follows that
GHGs are what cool the atmosphere.

I don't think you will find a single physicist
that will argue with that statement, and the only
reason the AGW proponents might feel there is
a conflict with GHG theory is because of the
failure of the general scope of the literature
to state specifically that an atmosphere without
GHGs would retain some heat overnight, and
GHGs provide a big part of the LTE, with lapse
rate and convection also contributing.

Frankly, the idea that GHGs are the only
thing that keeps the Earth from having the
temperature regime of the moon is an example
of failure to evaluate the gossip.

and what conclusion do you think we should all draw from
this statement.

That GHGs cool the atmosphere, in fact, GHGs
provide more than 80 percent of the cooling of
the Earth, meaning that the Sun warms the Earth,
GHGs cool the atmosphere, and the surface radiates
(about a fourth as much) LWIR to space.

Are you perhaps trying to tell us that increasing the
amount of GHGs would increase the so-called cooling effect?

That is what I have been wondering and
somewhat asking when I have written many times,
GHGs are the only thing that cool the atmosphere,
would more GHGs cool the atmosphere more?

In that case
you are trying to deceive us,

No, I am not, you are getting as loose with
words as LLoyd with the word Lie.

because it is simply not true.

Then that excludes high GHGs levels as a
cause of ice ages, but I haven't seen anything
that suggests high GHG levels prevent ice ages.

Scientists must evaluate all possibilities,
the AGW crowd seem to operate under the
assumption that all about GHG theory is known
and correct, I am skeptical of that.

I am also skeptical of the continuity of
the temperature data, both overall, and in
UHI locations.

I don't consider myself a scientist, but
I have made some contribution to technology
or science in general, and I have an interest
in truth in science.

The widespread opinion of GHGs being
the only thing that keeps the Earth from
being like the moon is disturbing, the length
of the day due to rotation makes a big
difference in the possible extremes, an
atmosphere of nitrogen alone would make
a difference, the oxygen provides both
heat sink mass and at high altitudes can
absorb UV and become a GHG.

So I consider CO2 to be less of a factor
than what the alarmists claim, and I question
the premise that CO2 levels can cause big
changes in average temperature, at least
not in the 4 degrees and above range,
with any concentration of CO2.

I am undecided on CO2 having any
noticeable effect on temperature at all,
which makes me more of a skeptic than
most.

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:42:57 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:

On Dec 11, 8:01Â*am, Bill Ward wrote:

Failure to understand is not a credible rebuttal.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill, I could say exactly the same. You feel that you are the only one
that really understands and you show that through your occasional
writings in this newsgroup. Over the last century so many physicists
have looked at this and the basic physics have not changed. CO2
absorbs IR radiation - OK, a complex spectrum (though not as complex
as H2O) - but it absorbs energy, re-radiating it, in all directions,
to warm the atmosphere. You seem to have a different solution and
you'd like to dismiss anyone who doesn't talk the same language as you
do.

I can't be an expert on everything and I don't claim to be. Nor can
anyone else. Nor are you. I read papers by others better qualified
than me. You do too. However, I am good at assessing probablilities
and likelihoods. The probability of you being correct and almost all
other scientists that have been involved in atmospheric physics being
wrong is highly unlikely. If you can't see that, it shows that you are
a long way from having any kind of understanding of probability.
Hence, it is highly likely that you are wrong and thus highly likely
that the view held by the vast majority is correct. (Never, ever,
would I call your views outright wrong, though the likelihood is that
they are).

I'm still not seeing any decent explanation of why the atmosphere is
not colder, given that the oft-quoted "natural cycles" are presently
in a state which ought to mean that it should *be* colder at present
and not the last 6 months sitting on the record as being extremely
warm compared to the last 130 years (and remember, my original
analysis of monthly temps went back 5 years - 30% of months being in
the top 2 warmest in 180 years - and I could extend that back 30-50
years, and show similar results - that's why the graph of temp against
time curves upwards).

The temperature can change in minutes, it
is presently 10 degrees below normal over most
of North America, that is cold enough, the thread
lasted too long to be timely.

I M @ good guy wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:05:13 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:

On Dec 10, 5:44 pm, Bill Ward wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:25:38 -0800, Dawlish wrote:
On Dec 10, 2:54 pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Stan and Dawlish
You may tell me what you want, CO2 has nothing, absolutely nothing, to
do with global warming.
Not much use responding with well-respected and cross-referenced
temperature data from the last century then that shows that the world
has warmed?
Of course not. No one is claiming that climate never changes. It's the
contribution of CO2 that's in question. You need to show a credible
mechanism by which CO2 could affect temperature in the presence of an
excess of water.

.....................this whole AGW quack obviously a lie.
So many deluded peole and so few that really *know* the truth.
You need to "show" the truth, not just "know" the truth. There's a
difference.

CO2 levels have never varied; solar radiative forcings have an effect
but haven't had any effect over the last 2 years; implications that
temperature rises since the last ice age have something to do with
present GW; I have to give in with you Peter. CO2 has absolutely nothing
to do with global warming.
Don't you ever ask yourself why so many scientists feel that it has?
Lucrative grants?
Oh come on Bill, That's not fair to so many conscientious and decent
scientists. That simply is not the norm.

So far, the responses from denialists have been:

a) The established physics are wrong: fair enough, you may think that,
but you really would think that so many physicists over the last
century would have produced a changed and accepted alternative theory
by now, so I find that point of view very difficult to accept.

b) The data is wrong, or has been altered: 5 sets of climate data all
agreeing make that highly unlikely.

c) The atmosphere will take longer than 2 years to lose all the heat
gathered over the last 100 years of "doubled" solar activity: that
cannot be true as the atmosphere reacts far more quickly than that to
changes in ENSO. Heat from the sun is not some kind of special heat
that takes longer to disperse!

d) Greenhouse gases cause cooling: sorry, but that's just not true.
CO2 has a complex absoption spectrum, but it is a strong absorber of
IR radiation. More CO2 = more absoption and warming. Accepted fact (by
nearly everyone).

e) There is a theory that CO2 has always been at pretty much the same
concentrations: there's a theory that the earth is flat and that
condoms have microscopic holes that allow the AIDS virus through. Both
are almost certainly untrue, as is this

f) Measured temperatures are stil within the "normal limits" since the
Holocene. Whatever has happened prior to the Industrial Revolution
cannot be compared to what has happened since, because of the increase
in CO2 and because of the massive increases in population. Variations
in global temperatures now, however "small" will cause social impacts
far greater than changes to post ice-age nomadic societies.

g) "Dismissed". Well, go tell that to Copenhagen and especially to
leaders of LEDCs whose land surface is low-lying.

Lots of denialist ideas, but, typically, no consensus amongst them and
nothing that addresses directly my assertion that given the present
state of "natural influences" (negative) it ought to be cooler than it
is. Every denialist knows they are right, but they can't agree on why
and can't produce a convincing single agument that shows that CO2 is
not the main driver of global temperature increases.

The denialist point of view, expressed here, is just wholly
unconvincing - and I'm someone who is prepared to be convinced. Bill's
point of view about the physics and the feedbacks could be reasonable,
but there are so many scientists working in this field that I cannot
believe that the physicists involved haven't realised what he has. The
"Lucrative grants?" bit is received wisdom, nut in any way the norm.


It isn't very smart to deny that GHGs cool
the atmosphere, only GHGs cool the atmosphere.

While most scientists are conscientious and
honest they may be intimidated enough not to
rock the boat, but that isn't really an issue,
a number of factors could be both causing some
warming, and UHI may be a bigger factor in
raw data than admitted by the three major units.

I would guess sulfur emissions may be an
issue, I tried to find recent history, but no luck.

I just hope the AGW activists are enjoying
temperatures like I am (15 degrees below normal).



Look, Ive been trying to track down what this CO2 cooling stuff is
you're talking about, and it seems most likely what you are referring to
is the theory that CO2 cools the STRATOSPHERE.
Get it? Nothing to do with global warming or the greenhouse effect,
which takes place in the TROPOSPHERE.

Do you even know what the difference is between the stratosphere and the
troposphere? Try doing just a little elementary reading on the makeup of
the earth's atmosphere and why the physical processes are different.

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:42:57 -0800, Dawlish wrote:

On Dec 11, 8:01Â*am, Bill Ward wrote:

Failure to understand is not a credible rebuttal.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill, I could say exactly the same. You feel that you are the only one
that really understands and you show that through your occasional
writings in this newsgroup. Over the last century so many physicists
have looked at this and the basic physics have not changed. CO2 absorbs
IR radiation - OK, a complex spectrum (though not as complex as H2O) -
but it absorbs energy, re-radiating it, in all directions, to warm the
atmosphere. You seem to have a different solution and you'd like to
dismiss anyone who doesn't talk the same language as you do.

OK, all you need to do is point out the errors in my explanation. Using
the language of physics makes it easier to understand, but you can
explain your position however you want. The concepts involved, however,
are not mine alone. They describe well-known principles of physics, and
you either need to accept them, or show why they're wrong.

I can't be an expert on everything and I don't claim to be. Nor can
anyone else. Nor are you. I read papers by others better qualified than
me. You do too. However, I am good at assessing probablilities and
likelihoods. The probability of you being correct and almost all other
scientists that have been involved in atmospheric physics being wrong is
highly unlikely.

The first part of your above paragraph disqualifies the second part. How
can you assign probabilities to things you don't understand? Why should
anyone care what you think if you can't explain why you think it? Appeal
to authority is not thinking, it is an excuse for not understanding.

If you can't see that, it shows that you are a long way
from having any kind of understanding of probability. Hence, it is
highly likely that you are wrong and thus highly likely that the view
held by the vast majority is correct. (Never, ever, would I call your
views outright wrong, though the likelihood is that they are).

So exactly why should I care what you think? You seem to avoid any
thinking that would enable you to understand what I'm saying. If you're
not even going to try, why should I waste my time on you?

I'm still not seeing any decent explanation of why the atmosphere is not
colder, given that the oft-quoted "natural cycles" are presently in a
state which ought to mean that it should *be* colder at present and not
the last 6 months sitting on the record as being extremely warm compared
to the last 130 years (and remember, my original analysis of monthly
temps went back 5 years - 30% of months being in the top 2 warmest in
180 years - and I could extend that back 30-50 years, and show similar
results - that's why the graph of temp against time curves upwards).

If you ever get to a point where you can present a coherent, logical
explanation of your hypothesis, let us know. Until then, this may help:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html

On Dec 11, 7:37*pm, Bill Ward wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:42:57 -0800, Dawlish wrote:

So exactly why should I care what you think? *You seem to avoid any
thinking that would enable you to understand what I'm saying. *If you're
not even going to try, why should I waste my time on you?


Why try when even if I talked pure physics, you'd continue to believe
what you do? You know you are right Bill, even though generations of
physicists would disagree with you. You also appear to "waste your
time" with an awful lot of people who you don't feel understand as
much as you do.......

Unfortunately the outcomes, in terms of rising Global temperatures,
are leaving you behind.

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:07:42 +0100, Tom P wrote:

I M @ good guy wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 14:05:13 -0800 (PST), Dawlish
wrote:

On Dec 10, 5:44 pm, Bill Ward wrote:
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:25:38 -0800, Dawlish wrote:
On Dec 10, 2:54 pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
Stan and Dawlish
You may tell me what you want, CO2 has nothing, absolutely nothing, to
do with global warming.
Not much use responding with well-respected and cross-referenced
temperature data from the last century then that shows that the world
has warmed?
Of course not. No one is claiming that climate never changes. It's the
contribution of CO2 that's in question. You need to show a credible
mechanism by which CO2 could affect temperature in the presence of an
excess of water.

.....................this whole AGW quack obviously a lie.
So many deluded peole and so few that really *know* the truth.
You need to "show" the truth, not just "know" the truth. There's a
difference.

CO2 levels have never varied; solar radiative forcings have an effect
but haven't had any effect over the last 2 years; implications that
temperature rises since the last ice age have something to do with
present GW; I have to give in with you Peter. CO2 has absolutely nothing
to do with global warming.
Don't you ever ask yourself why so many scientists feel that it has?
Lucrative grants?
Oh come on Bill, That's not fair to so many conscientious and decent
scientists. That simply is not the norm.

So far, the responses from denialists have been:

a) The established physics are wrong: fair enough, you may think that,
but you really would think that so many physicists over the last
century would have produced a changed and accepted alternative theory
by now, so I find that point of view very difficult to accept.

b) The data is wrong, or has been altered: 5 sets of climate data all
agreeing make that highly unlikely.

c) The atmosphere will take longer than 2 years to lose all the heat
gathered over the last 100 years of "doubled" solar activity: that
cannot be true as the atmosphere reacts far more quickly than that to
changes in ENSO. Heat from the sun is not some kind of special heat
that takes longer to disperse!

d) Greenhouse gases cause cooling: sorry, but that's just not true.
CO2 has a complex absoption spectrum, but it is a strong absorber of
IR radiation. More CO2 = more absoption and warming. Accepted fact (by
nearly everyone).

e) There is a theory that CO2 has always been at pretty much the same
concentrations: there's a theory that the earth is flat and that
condoms have microscopic holes that allow the AIDS virus through. Both
are almost certainly untrue, as is this

f) Measured temperatures are stil within the "normal limits" since the
Holocene. Whatever has happened prior to the Industrial Revolution
cannot be compared to what has happened since, because of the increase
in CO2 and because of the massive increases in population. Variations
in global temperatures now, however "small" will cause social impacts
far greater than changes to post ice-age nomadic societies.

g) "Dismissed". Well, go tell that to Copenhagen and especially to
leaders of LEDCs whose land surface is low-lying.

Lots of denialist ideas, but, typically, no consensus amongst them and
nothing that addresses directly my assertion that given the present
state of "natural influences" (negative) it ought to be cooler than it
is. Every denialist knows they are right, but they can't agree on why
and can't produce a convincing single agument that shows that CO2 is
not the main driver of global temperature increases.

The denialist point of view, expressed here, is just wholly
unconvincing - and I'm someone who is prepared to be convinced. Bill's
point of view about the physics and the feedbacks could be reasonable,
but there are so many scientists working in this field that I cannot
believe that the physicists involved haven't realised what he has. The
"Lucrative grants?" bit is received wisdom, nut in any way the norm.


It isn't very smart to deny that GHGs cool
the atmosphere, only GHGs cool the atmosphere.

While most scientists are conscientious and
honest they may be intimidated enough not to
rock the boat, but that isn't really an issue,
a number of factors could be both causing some
warming, and UHI may be a bigger factor in
raw data than admitted by the three major units.

I would guess sulfur emissions may be an
issue, I tried to find recent history, but no luck.

I just hope the AGW activists are enjoying
temperatures like I am (15 degrees below normal).



Look, Ive been trying to track down what this CO2 cooling stuff is
you're talking about, and it seems most likely what you are referring to
is the theory that CO2 cools the STRATOSPHERE.


I wasn't referring to any published theory,
I heard increased CO2 cooled the stratosphere
more than expected (or something like that).

Check several Earth Energy Budget offerings,
one of them shows that less than 20 per cent of
solar energy absorbed by the Earth is radiated
directly by the surface, the rest is radiated to
space by the atmosphere, which may mean
clouds too, I don't know.

Get it? Nothing to do with global warming or the greenhouse effect,
which takes place in the TROPOSPHERE.


Isn't every molecule radiating LWIR at the
same time?

And all are absorbing at the same time?

Doesn't that mean that energy is constantly
being passed on, whether it starts upward or
downward it eventually gets to the stratosphere
and gets radiated to space.

Do you even know what the difference is between the stratosphere and the
troposphere?


Of course not, only AGW scientists know that.


Try doing just a little elementary reading on the makeup of
the earth's atmosphere and why the physical processes are different.


Try to name something other than GHGs
that cool the atmosphere.

It doesn't matter how GHGs do it, they
cool the entire atmosphere, nothing else does,
either name something else, or agree.