Re: The Real Junk Science

On Wed, 18 May 05 14:30:19 GMT, lparker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article <268l81pkku1dimvia7bh240l157mgjqemc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>   Wm James <wrjames.remove@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>On Tue, 17 May 2005 17:07:57 GMT, "Coby Beck" <cbeck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"Wm James" <wrjames.remove@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>>news:1hgi81p4op70fvg96hn90c7jtl31u0vtp5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> On Mon, 16 May 2005 02:22:49 GMT, "Coby Beck" <cbeck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>"Wm James" <wrjames.remove@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>news:m6vf811l4bssj0e50i2dhm3la063piso1b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>> Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
>>>>>> Effect," expressed as % of Total (water va**** INCLUDED) Based on
>>>>>> concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        % of All Greenhouse Gases   % Natural   % Man-made
>>>>>> Water va****           95.000%        94.999%     0.001%
>>>>>> Carbon Dioxide (CO2)   3.618%         3.502%     0.117%
>>>>>> Methane (CH4)          0.360%         0.294%     0.066%
>>>>>> Nitrous Oxide (N2O)    0.950%         0.903%     0.047%
>>>>>> Misc. gases            0.072%         0.025%     0.047%
>>>>>> Total                100.000%         99.72%     0.28%
>>>>>
>>>>>How did you calculate these numbers?
>>>>
>>>> They are a few years old.  Still relevant.
>>>
>>>You didn't answer my question.  If you did not calculate them yourself,

>what 
>>>text book or scientific source did you get them from?
>>
>>You want to attack me or the source or something other than the
>>figures?  And you want my help?  If you can't dispute the data, just
>>say so.
>
>If you can't back up the data, just drop out.

So you are saying you can't dispute it?

>>>> What do you find, if anything, wrong with the figures?
>>>
>>>I pointed out several problems with them below, you answered none.
>>
>>You did nothing of the kind.
>>
>>>>>I'm especially curious as to how
>>>>>man-made CO2 has gone from ~280ppm to ~380ppm (accounting for 23% of 
>>>>>what's
>>>>>in the atmosphere) and yet is only contributing 3.3% of the total CO2

>heat
>>>>>retention?
>>>>
>>>> As a greenhouse gas, CO2 is rather poor compared to water va****.
>>>
>>>You did not address my question at all.
>>
>>ROTFLMAO! 
>>Your reading problems do not equate to any problem or error on my
>>part. You snip what I said, then act like I never said it!  And you
>>think you are making any point other than that you are a clueless
>>liar?
>>
>>>>>Have you accounted for the effects of differeing IR absorbtion
>>>>>bandwidths of the gases, specifically where they do and don't
overlap? 
>>>>>The
>>>>>table you show has been debunked many times and only persists through
>>>>>mindless repetition.  If you do the calculations correctly, the real 
>role 
>>>>>of
>>>>>H2O is about 70%.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense!
>>>
>>>Why?  And where is the answer to my question?
>>
>>You mean the part you snipped where I said this:
>>The real role of H20 is closer to 100% when you account for
>>the other affects of water on trans****tating and storing energy via
>>state change and it's control of earth's reflectivity, actually
>>regulatng how much of the suns energy gets here to be absorbed.  The
>>CO2 is meaningless.
>
>Not this tired old worthless BS again.

So you are saying you can't refute that either?

>>>>>But remember, the greenhouse effect keeps the temperature from being
>>>>>around -18oC, thus the rise of about 1 degree is not inconsistent
with 
>>>>>CO2's
>>>>>weighted role in greenhouse warming.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense!
>>>
>>>Sorry, this is again, too easy a copout.  What specifically is
nonsense? 
>and 
>>>Why?  Even using your over estimate of H2O's greenhouse role, a 3% rise
in 
>>>temperature from a 70% rise in CO2 is not out of the ballpark.
>>
>>Once again, you snip to attempt to argue beyond your limited capacity.
>>What I said was:
>>Nonsense!  Water provides the regulation, and even without the
>>regulation accounts for 95% of the greenhouse g*****.  
>
>Irrelevant, and highly stupid of you to keep posting this.

In other words, you can't refute that too?

>>Besides, if CO2
>>were a factor, then the data would show warming, and it doesn't.
>
>You are a liar.

Ah, now you go back to the usual debating technique when absent
anything to refute the argument.  Predictable...

>>In
>>fact, there should have been a huge spike in temperature during WWII,
>>but the opposite actually occured. 
>>
>>Obviously, you can neither understand it or formulate any argument
>>agaisnt it.  So cutting out and climing iyt wasn't adressed is
>>apparently all you can do.  Pretty pathetic. 
>
>Learn some science.

And again.  When confronted with science, the best you can to is such
nonsense.  Again, predictable. 

>>>> Besides, if CO2
>>>> were a factor, then the data would show warming, and it doesn't.
>>>
>>>Yes it does.  http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/
>>
>>Surface temperature analysis?  Be serious, and look up "data minining"
>>while you are at it. 
>
>LOL!  You cite fake science!

Does that mean you looked it up and found the fake science used to
peddle the warming hoax?

>> And forget the "corrected" MSU data, look at the
>>data itself.  
>
>
>People have.  They write in scientific journals. Read some.

Some do, and I have read it.  Unlike you, I understand the science and
don't have to rely on what I'm told to parrot.

>>The "orbital decay" BS excuse for altering it is
>>worsethen pseudoscince, it's simple fraud. 
>
>Well, you'd know fraud.

So you admit it?

>> There are only two
>>possibilities.Either 1) they intentionally committed the fruad to turn
>>cooling into warming in spite of the data, and or 2) They are so
>>clueless they couldn't even figure out their own experiment.  When I
>>fist heard the nonsense, I laughed because I assumed they were
>>claiming they hadn't accounted for orbital decay in low orbit
>>satellites, and were too ignorant in making up such an excuse to
>>realise that such a decay would cause higher readings, not lower.  But
>>I really have a hard laugh when I heard the rest!  They actually pled
>>total incompetence claiming that the decay was in the longitudinal
>>path of the polar orbiting satellite so they didn't even know where it
>>was and what they were measuring!  
>>
>>And http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/
>>"Global temperatures have been monitored by satellite since 1979 with
>>the Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) flying on the National Oceanic and
>>Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) TIROS-N series of polar-orbiting
>>weather satellites. Data from nine separate satellites have been
>>combined to provide a global record of temperature fluctuations in the
>>lower troposphere (the lowest 5 miles of the atmosphere) and the lower
>>stratosphere (covering an altitude range of about 9-12 miles). The
>>global image above shows monthly-averaged temperature anomalies
>>(departure from seasonal normals), while the graph shows point or
>>area-averaged anomalies for the entire period of record (since January
>>1979).
>>
>>The lower tropospheric data are often cited as evidence against global
>>warming, because they have as yet failed to show any warming trend
>>when averaged over the entire Earth. 
>
>You are lying.  This is out of date.

It's a direct quote from http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/
Look it up and stop making a fool of yourself.

>>The lower stratospheric data show
>>a significant cooling trend, which is consistent with ozone depletion.
>>In addition to the recent cooling, large tem****ary warming
>>perturbations may be seen in the data due to two major volcanic
>>eruptions: El Chichon in March 1982, and Mt. Pinatubo in June 1991. "
>>
>>Learn to read the data before you attempt to argue with it next time. 
>>
>>>>>The main point to remember is we are dealing with a balance and as
such 
>a
>>>>>small amount that you otherwise may wish to dismiss as insignificant,
is 
>>>>>in
>>>>>fact critical.  H2O concentration is a feedback not a forcing of
climate
>>>>>change.
>>>>
>>>> Not even close.  That's pseudoscience quackery with no science behind
>>>> it at all.  It's not unlike creationism and psychics.
>>>
>>>Again, a cheap copout.  Ignore the point, don't address the reasoning, 
>just 
>>>use name-calling and slander.  Not a terribly impressive effort.
>>
>>Regerring to pseudoscience quackery as pseudoscience quackery is
>>hardly name calling, it's just stating the facts. 
>>Your snippage does not equate to any falure on my part to provide you
>>with information.  But remain ignorant if it makes you happy.
>>
>>William R. James
>
>Like I said, you'd know all about quackery.

I can recognize it, yes.  It's not a complicated skill, even you could
learn it.

William R. James