Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
"Larry" wrote: On 22 Apr 2007 04:18:41 -0700, wrote: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Featur...arming>1=924 6 That so-called "primer" neglects to mention that water vapor is a major greenhouse gas and that water vapor constitutes 95% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That makes water vapor (which comes mostly from the oceans) THE most important greenhouse gas because of its overwhelming presence. The "primer" also neglects to mention that the oceans absorb / release a great deal of atmospheric CO2 as their temperatures change, complicating any simple-minded attempt to relate atmospheric CO2 to human production of CO2. As the debate continues in the public realm, the average person is going to realize that the alarmists aren't making much scientific sense at all. That will be a good thing and may save all of us from needless and damaging public policy. The fact that Al Gore thinks that way is enough for me to run the other way. The guy is the biggest hypocrite BS artist around. Second place would go to that ditz Art Bell had on the last weekend. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Art ditz Bell and George ditz Noory are laughing all the way to the
bank. cuhulin |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 22, 10:22 am, "Larry" wrote:
On 22 Apr 2007 04:18:41 -0700, wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. The increased water vapor in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature; the increase in temperature leads to still further increase in atmospheric water vapor; and the feedback cycle continues until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2.[9] Changes in water vapor may also have indirect effects via cloud formation. http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/Featur...GlobalWarming&... That so-called "primer" neglects to mention that water vapor is a major greenhouse gas and that water vapor constitutes 95% of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That makes water vapor (which comes mostly from the oceans) THE most important greenhouse gas because of its overwhelming presence. The "primer" also neglects to mention that the oceans absorb / release a great deal of atmospheric CO2 as their temperatures change, complicating any simple-minded attempt to relate atmospheric CO2 to human production of CO2. As the debate continues in the public realm, the average person is going to realize that the alarmists aren't making much scientific sense at all. That will be a good thing and may save all of us from needless and damaging public policy. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 22 Apr 2007 10:34:09 -0700, wrote:
On Apr 22, 10:22 am, "Larry" wrote: On 22 Apr 2007 04:18:41 -0700, wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, It's going to be difficult for those people to explain the very real fact that the earth has been measurably cooling for the last eight years, in spite of an increase in CO2 levels. I've done lots of computer modeling in my time, and I know how terribly inaccurate computer models can be, even in the hands of trained scientists. First of all, computers use finite sized registers (only so many digits per number), and differential equations must be approximated by means of various numerical techniques. Often, the modelers who write the programs aren't really cognizant of truncation and roundoff errors and how those errors propagate throughout their calculations. It is quite easy to wind up with answers which are totally meaningless at the end of several hundred million arithmetic operations, because by then all you may have left is basically reproducible digital noise. It isn't enough to have a good mathematical model and good data when you start. You must also have an experienced numerical analyst examine and test your computer algorithms if you want to have any chance of avoiding digital oblivion. The algorithms must be completely tested with data that give a known answer before they can be used for anything else. Most atmospheric scientists are lousy numerical analysts. Most numerical analysts are lousy atmospheric scientists. Guess what you are likely to get when you use either individual by himself to produce a computer model? The modeling aside, it always makes me suspicious when someone invokes what amounts to an unstable equilibrium argument (a tipping point) to explain how a minority variable (CO2) can drastically influence the 95% majority greenhouse gas that is H2O. It's akin to arguing that the atmosphere is like a coin which has been carefully put down on its edge and which therefore only needs a slight shove to make it fall over. Nature constantly applies perturbations to the atmospheric system, and if it were that unstable, it would long ago have "tipped." The Wikipedia statement looks very much to me like rationalization. The writer is already invested in the idea that CO2 somehow is the key, and so he invents an argument to make things come out that way. That's not science; that's hand waving. Note that he apparently can't attach numbers or observations to the argument he has made. But there may be a resolution: According to one group of scientists which tracks solar irradiance, the observed cooling of the earth is going to accelerate. They claim that the earth will be significantly cooler than it is today by 2040. If that even comes partially true, then we will know that the CO2 advocates have been quite wrong. Stay tuned. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:30:14 +0000 (UTC), "Larry"
wrote: It's going to be difficult for those people to explain the very real fact that the earth has been measurably cooling for the last eight years, in spite of an increase in CO2 levels. http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...2006_warm.html |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 22 Apr 2007 16:07:58 -0700, RHF wrote:
- The fact that Al Gore thinks that way is enough for me - to run the other way. The guy is the biggest hypocrite - BS artist around. Second place would go to that ditz - Art Bell had on the last weekend. That shows the extreme level of absurdity that passes for critical thinking these days. ''I refuse to believe it because then I'd have something in common with a thoroughly decent person whom I've been told I don't like (even though I've never met the fellow).'' |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 22 Apr 2007 16:10:10 -0700, RHF wrote:
On Apr 22, 2:20 pm, David wrote: On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:30:14 +0000 (UTC), "Larry" wrote: It's going to be difficult for those people to explain the very real fact that the earth has been measurably cooling for the last eight years, in spite of an increase in CO2 levels. http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...2006_warm.html David - Clearly we are keeping better Records now. ~ RHF Ahh... So, some guys on You Tube know more about the Earth's temperature than NASA? Is that your final answer? |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() in rec.radio.shortwave, David said about: ( OT) Global Warming, a primer . . On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:30:14 +0000 (UTC), "Larry" wrote: It's going to be difficult for those people to explain the very real fact that the earth has been measurably cooling for the last eight years, in spite of an increase in CO2 levels. http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...2006_warm.html nasa.gov ??? That says: =============begin quotes 2006 Was Earth's Fifth Warmest Year in the past century 02.08.07 Graphic listing the top five warmest years recorded Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2006 was the fifth warmest year in the past century. Image right: The five warmest years since the late 1880s, according to NASA scientists, are in descending order 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2006. Credit: NASA Other groups that study climate change also rank these years as among the warmest, though the exact rankings vary depending upon details of the analyses. Results differ especially in regions of sparse measurements, where scientists use alternative methods of estimating temperature change. Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea surface temperature since 1982 and data from ships for earlier years. =============end quotes. Thanks David! -- When one gains a political certainty akin to a loyal sports fan, one has achieved the final tranquility of servitude, a joyous slavery. "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776 |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
I am not a weather expert,but I know the weather here in
Jackson,Mississippi,for about the last year or so,has been,and still is,a little cooler than the way it was before.I reckon in about a month or two or three,the temps will be climbing on up into the 90s,,,,, and then al gore will be hollering more BS Hot Air louder and louder,,,,, it's Global Warming! al gore doesn't know S..T! Weather guy on local tv news said we might get some rain today,I Hope so. cuhulin |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Benefits of Global Warming, It's Not All Scary | Shortwave | |||
OT Is this the REAL cause of global warming? | Shortwave | |||
OT Is this the REAL cause of global warming? | Shortwave |