On Fri, 20 May 05 14:00:43 GMT, lparker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
>In article <0ciq81lu2u9iilb4dqkootckdhphh3g9fq@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Wm James <wrjames.remove@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>On Wed, 18 May 2005 19:32:43 GMT, "Coby Beck" <cbeck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"Wm James" <wrjames.remove@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>news:268l81pkku1dimvia7bh240l157mgjqemc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>I already pointed out its problems. It is not unreasonable to ask for
a
>>>source or method when someone posts a set of figures. Given your
>reluctance
>>>to be forthcoming, I guess you don't have any reliable source.
>>
>>No, I'm just waiting for the punchline. I know what it is, I'm
>>waiting to hear it.
>>
>>>>>>>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?
>>>
>>>I snipped it because it was irrelevant. I left your main point that
CO2
>is
>>>poor relative to water, the rest was sup****ting that statement, all the
>>>sup****t in the world does not make it relevant.
>>
>>It's absolutely relevant! It's the entire point, the whole issue!
>>
>>>The snipped content was:
>>>"Although CO2, by volume os over 70% of the greenhouse g***** OTHER
>>> THAN WATER, it's effect is pretty insignificant. If you want a real
>>> world simple test, spend a weekend in the desert. The CO2 contrations
>>> in any of earth's deserts osn't significantly different from anywhere
>>> else on earth, be it the jungle or an average city. What is different
>>> is that water. There's very little water in the desert atmosphere on
>>> most days and nights and as a result the days are hot and the nights
>>> cold. The CO2 isn't much help, is it?"
>>>
>>>How does this answer my question about why your chart shows 23% of
>>>atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic but only 3.3% of CO2 heat retention is
>>>anthropogenic?
>>
>>Where do you see 23% or 3.3% in that anywhere? The total of
>>anthropogenic greenhouse g***** is only 0.28%. The total of CO2 is
>>only 3.618%. Are you referring to the total of all combined
>>anthropogenic greenhouse gases? That's barely inder 3.3% by volume,
>>IGNORING WATER, and without adjusting for greenhouse effect of the
>>g*****.
>
>You keep spouting this garbage; either you do not understand the science,
or
>you're deliberately lying. Either way, just shut the hell up.
Ah, shut up if I'm not willing to parrot the pseudoscience and play
along with the hoax? Not a chance. I you want to sell your
quackery to the ignorant m*****, you'll have to fight those practicing
science all the way.
>>Here's one page I just located using google:
>>(btw, they seem to have the same source as me, huh? :) )
>>http://www.keystonecurriculum.org/html/climate_change_debate.html
>>
>>=================================================================
>>....
>>Water va**** overwhelms all other natural and man-made greenhouse
>>contributions.
>
>Irrelevant, as we keep telling you.
And you are wrong, and have been repeately proven wrong. Whether you
are intentionally lying or simply incapable of conprehending is
irrelevant.
>>3. Table 3 shows what happens when the effect of water va**** is
>>factored in, and together with all other greenhouse gases expressed as
>>a relative % of the total greenhouse effect.
>>
>>Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
>>(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
>>Contribution to the "Greenhouse Effect"
>>
>>Based on concentrations Percent of Total
>>(ppb) adjusted for heat Percent of Total --adjusted for
>>retention characteristics water va****
>>
>>Water va**** ----- 95.000%
>>Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72.369% 3.618%
>>Methane (CH4) 7.100% 0.360%
>>Nitrous oxide (N2O) 19.000% 0.950%
>>CFC's (and other misc. gases) 1.432% 0.072%
>>
>>Total 100.000% 100.000%
>>
>>As illustrated in this chart of the data in Table 3, the combined
>>greenhouse contributions of CO2, methane, N2O, and misc. gases are
>>small compared to water va****!
>
>Irrelevant. Your body temp. is naturally 310K, so by your "reasoning," a
>virus which raises it 5%, or 15 K, would not be no problem.
Learn to read. A virus which raises it by ZERO wouldn't be a problem
in that regard. Increasing the CO2 doesn't affect the earth's
temperature at all, it doesn't even affect the total greenhouse gas
concentrations. You need to learn a little basic science and get it
through your thick skull that water is not just the only relevant
greenhous gas, but it's variable and a functionof the temperature and
regulates the reflectivity! The greenhouse g***** is not the sole
factor in the earth's temperature. If we had a million times the
greenhouse g***** but got no energy from the sun it would still be a
very cold planet. Go back to school, learn a little basic science,
and stop listening to your parrot trainers.
>>Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) -- both man-made and natural--
>>is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect. Water va****, the
>>most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is
>>responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (4). Among
>>climatologists, this is common knowledge, but among special interests,
>>certain environmental groups and news re****ters this fact is
>>under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.
>
>You are either ignorant or lying. Once again, the issue is the added
>warming, NOT the natural greenhouse effect. Get someone to explain it to
>you -- a kid in middle school would know better.
THERE IS NO "ADDED WARMING". Until you are able to comprehend that
simple fact you wont be able to stop parroting pseudoscience BS. If
there were any "added warming" as a result of rises in CO@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
then the
data would have shown it. It has NEVER shown it.
>>Conceding that it might be "a little misleading" to leave water va****
>>out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating that it is
>>"customary" to do so!
>>....
>>==================================================================
>>
>>They even include these quotes:
>>" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously
>>observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on
>>future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "
>>
>>Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
>>Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of
>>Virginia,
>>and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
>>in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal
>
>Oh give us a break. A creationist citing a creationist as an authority.
>What a fool.
You are a creationist? If there's a creationist here, it's certianly
not me. But your attempt to argue against science by using personal
attacks instead of addressing the data or the claim is pretty
predictable for a parrot.
>>" I can only see one element of the climate system capable of
>>generating these fast, global changes, that is, changes in the
>>tropical atmosphere leading to changes in the inventory of the earth's
>>most powerful greenhouse gas-- water va****. "
>>
>>Dr. Wallace Broecker, a leading world authority on climate
>>Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
>>lecture presented at R. A. Daly Lecture at the American Geophysical
>>Union's
>>spring meeting in Baltimore, Md., May 1996.
>
>10 years out of date. Surely you can do better.
It's nt out of date at all. Nothing's changed but the volume of the
kooks and chicken little's whinings.
>>Here's another with similar data:
>>http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
>>"Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
>>
>>It is about 0.28%, if water va**** is taken into account-- about 5.53%,
>>if not."
>>
>>
>
>Again, irrelevant. ALL the added warming is due to human activity.
There is no "added warming". If you think there is, then you should
become a hero and be the first to find evidence of it.
>>>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Simply stating a conflicting opinion is not pointing out the problems
with
>>>what I said. I made a simple and clear point, you can not refute it so
>you
>>>yell "Nonesense" and make even more extreme and equally unsup****ted
>claims.
>>>You also continue to avoid my question as to whether your chart
accounts
>for
>>>IR absorbtion bandwidth overlaps.
>>
>>I pointed out the simple fact that the CO2 is irrelevant,
>
>
>You're stupid then.
Your typical and predictable attempt at rebuttle is noted.
>> that water
>>is the regulating factor. Increasing the CO2, doubling it, quadupling
>>it, would make absolutely no difference int he earth's temperature
>>because of the role of water.
>
>You're lying.
Your typical and predictable attempt at rebuttle is noted.
>>The water in the atmosphere is a
>>function of the temperature as long as there is both liquid and gas.
>>Everyone who ever took even a basic course on refrigeration
>>understands the principle even if they never read a science text book.
>>You heat the air, you get more eva****ation, that's higher humidity
>>withut increasing the relative humidity. The ocean is a huge global
>>reserve of the earth's equivilant to freon. Water absorbs massive
>>amounts of energy just changing state. You can observe that phenomonon
>>by wetting a canteen and hanging it in the shade in the desert. You
>>can nearly freeze the water even if it's 100 degrees in the shade. Or
>>stick a thermometer in a pot of boiling water and see it stop getting
>>hotter as 212 degrees even though you are pumping more energy into it.
>>The earth does the same thing. If water can eva****ate and condense,
>>the temperature doesn't change except relative to the energy input and
>>distribution. The water also trans****ts surface energy (not just in
>>the form of heat, but in the water's change of state) high intoi the
>>atmosphere whe it loses energy when condensing radiating the energy
>>out into space and also reflecting light so less energy makes it to
>>the surface to eva****ate more water. This is really basic science.
>>it's not complicated at all.
>>
>
>Read the IPCC re****t.
Might as well read any sci-fi fantasy novel. How about read the
IPCC's unmunged data, the data they tried to explain away, the data
they ignored when concluding that they needed more tax dollars to
prove their pseudoscience?
Do you also believe smoking is safe based on the "scientists" re****ts
paid for by the tobacco companies? They found the preformed
conclusions they were paid to find too, and for the same reason the
whores in the IPCC ignored the data to find their preformed
conslusions.
>>>>>>>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*****. Besides, if
CO2
>>>> were a factor, then the data would show warming, and it doesn't. In
>>>> fact, there should have been a huge spike in temperature during WWII,
>>>> but the opposite actually occured.
>>>
>>>You really need your nose rubbed in it don't you? Where in the above
>>>restored context is anything addressing the simple point that the total
>>>greenhouse effect of ~33oC vs the AGW of ~.75oC is consistent with the
>very
>>>large role of H2O vapour in Greenhouse theory?
>>
>>See above. If you can't read, have someone who can explain it to you.
>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>>Uh..most of us live here on the surface (earth that is) not you?
>>
>>I live on one tiny piece of the surface. Like those peddling the
>>hoax, I don't live on the whole thing, and unlike them, I wouldn't
>>claim my observation here is global.
>
>So read the IPCC re****t.
See above. Read the data.
>>>I'm happy
>>>for you that you found one study, discredited years ago, that sup****ts
>>>*your* pre-formed conclusion that nothing is happening, but you really
do
>>>stretch credibility when you try to excuse and ignore everything else
(and
>I
>>>do mean everything). That crack about "data mining" (you mean cherry
>>>picking) is quite rich.
>>
>>No, I said "data mining" because I meant "data mining". Look it up.
>>You might notice the techniques used to sell all sorts of scams and
>>pseudocience, including the global warming hoax.
>
>You're a liar.
Your typical and predictable attempt at rebuttle is noted.
>>>How come every scientific effort that shows warming is "quackery" and
the
>>>one that didn't you swallow whole?
>>
>>Where is a scientific effort that shows warming?
>>
>>William R. James
>>
>
>IPCC, NAS, NASA, EPA, NOAA, scientific journals -- all sources fools like
>you never tread. Go find some right-wing "talk" group and peddle your
crap
>there.
Your typical and predictable attempt at rebuttle is noted.
Learn a little science.
William R. James
|
