Re: The Real Junk Science

On Sun, 22 May 2005 19:10:49 GMT, "Coby Beck" <cbeck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>"Wm James" <wrjames.remove@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>news:99sv81db9bv6bbuo5jr064032v1i2cqqom@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Fri, 20 May 2005 16:26:57 GMT, "Coby Beck" <cbeck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>1. You have correctly accepted that the GH effect maintains the warm
>>>temperature that the surface of the earth would not otherwise enjoy.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>2. You have now correctly stated that water vapour concentration is a
>>>function of air temperature.  If you increase WV concentration by some 
>>>means
>>>it will condense and rain out.  If you dry the air by some means water 
>>>will
>>>eva****ate from the ocean to replace it.
>>
>> Yes. What you are missing is the non greenhouse effects of that.
>
>I am not missing this, it is not part of the discussion about changes in
GH 
>effect and the respective roles of H2O vapour and atmospheric CO2 as
green 
>house gases.

That's my point!  The entire regulatory efffects of water on earth's
temperature are totally ignored by the kooks peddling the
pseudoscience!  They almost never even admit that water is a greenhose
gas!  Water va****, at 95%+ of the total, they constantly refer to CO2
as the the majopr greenhouse gas.  That alone removes them from any
rational discussion of the issue. 

>>>You now have no way to explain changes in surface air temperature
through
>>>discussion of water vapour.  As you have correctly stated, vapour
changes
>>>are an effect of temperature change not a cause.
>>
>> It's not a dorect cause, but it's absolutely a major cause of
>> temperature changes for several reasons.  When water changes state it
>> absorbs or releases far more energy than it does by changing
>> temperature in the same state. And it regulates the earth's
>> reflectivity regulating the amount of energy the earth recieves from
>> the sun.  Raise the temperature, you get more va****, more va**** means
>> more condensation, which means more clouds which means less energy
>> reaching the earth which means lower temperature. If not for the fact
>
>These are not unreasonable hypotheses and the effects you discuss are
real. 
>However, where is the research that sup****ts what you say?  You also are 
>forgetting the additional but opposite effect of cloud cover acting as an

>insulator at night, helping to retain surface warmth.  You need to look
at 
>the details and do some calculations and measurements, not just
hypothesize 
>in one breath and declare a New Truth in the next.

The research?  Their own data fails to sup****t their claims of
warming.  

>>>It is a short step now to understanding what is really going on.  CO2,
a
>>>GHG, increases and results in a small increase in heat retention.  This
>>>temperature increase causes an increase in water va****, a much more 
>>>powerful
>>>GHG, which in turn drives the temperature even higher.  It is called a
>>>feedback.
>>
>> That's the claims of those peddling the hoax when faced with the
>> problem of explaining away their habitual false claims that CO2 if the
>> magor greenhouse gas.
>>  But it's wrong.  First of all, any increase in
>> temperature would raise the amount of va****, but it would also raise
>> the amount of condensation reflecting more energy into space and
>> lowering the temperature.  The feedback is negative, not positive.
>> Secondly, the energy reaching the surface is the vast majority of the
>> issue, and what does make it to the surface doesn't necessarily
>> translate to heat.  Eva****ating water absorbs many times the energy it
>> takes to raise it even by one degree. That's how cooling systems work.
>> The condensation releases the energy higher up, radiating the heat
>> back into space.  Again, the feedback is negative.
>
>Again, sounds reasonable, but where are the numbers?  Where is the
sup****t 
>for this contention?  While one might be tempted to discuss something
like 
>this seriously, when you put it beside your absurd position that GW is a 
>hoax that no real scientist believes in, there is little reason to think
you 
>will have better to offer when pressed for details.

The global warming hoax is pure pseudoscience, extraordinary claims
which require at least some evidence.  The data, not the preforened
conclusions from the likes of the frauds at the IPCC, IS "the
numbers".  If you have some evidence of warming, be a hero and do what
the frauds have so far been unable to do... show it! 

>>>This is how a small change in something a naive person might
>>>dismiss as irrelevant can in fact have a critical and large effect.
>>
>> If you assume water has no affects on the earth's temperature other
>> than a greenhouse gas, that's true, but it's a totaly false
>> assumption.
>
>Strawman.  It is indeed a false assumption, but it is not one I made. 
Why 
>should I try to discuss the details when you can't even acknowledge that
the 
>temperature is rising or that CO2 could possibly cause it?  And why do
you 
>want to discuss all these mechanisms that presumable have always
operated? 
>The climate is changing, we therefore focus on what is different.

That is indeed the assumption those peddling the hoax are making.  Use
google. See if you can even find three of the MANY MANY pages of
various so-called "educational" orgs, universities, and agencies
peddling the hoax that doesn't entirely discount water and blatently
lie about the major greenhouse gas.  Nearly every one of them fail to
even mention water. 

>> The kooks peddling the hoax
>
>I like it when you say things like this.  It removes any doubt that you
may 
>have a legitimate point to make.  You are labeling as kooks the vast 
>majority of the scientists at NASA, NOAA, BAS, NAS, EPA and all the best 
>universities in the world.  They could be wrong, but the only reason to 
>dismiss them all as "kooks peddling a hoax" is so you can avoid the 
>scientific issue.

The EPA, like I said in an earlier post, it's pretty irrelevant to
this discussion. NASA and NOAA, like I have already stated, do not
show warming in their data. (see below regarding your link).  NAS is a
whore for tax dollars and scaremongering is big business for such
orgs. The BAS is even worse in that regard. It's not even global, it's
a testimonial in that it's ONE PLACE, not global, so irrelevant to any
discussion of global temperature. 

>>>> withut increasing the relative humidity.  The ocean is a huge global
>>>> reserve of the earth's equivilant to freon.  Water absorbs massive
>>>
>>>The ocean is also warming.
>>
>> No evidence of that either.  The british have been keeping recordsfor
>> well over a century and the only significant spike was a long time ago
>> when they changes the method of measuring.
>
>There is recent research showing ocean warming very much in line with
model 
>predictions.  Check here:
>http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20050428/
 (I know, I know, NASA, 
>another kook site...)

Did you read it?  10 years? Are you serious???  10 years????  That's
not even one solar cycle!  It's meaningless!  Climate is variable over
centuries! Basiing any claimof climate change on data over 10 years is
not only meaningless, it's silly and bogus.  It's no different from a
TV "psychic" or "faith healer" using testimonials to "prove" theoir
powers. It's silly nonsense entirely unrelated to science. 

Read NASA's data!  Forget the occasional PR publication from the
occasional kook in their midst.  You might as well take their silly
news conference a few years ago regarding the possible evidence that
suggests that maybe bacterial live might have once existed on mars as
a claim that we are in immediate threat of a martian invasion.   NASA
is legitimate, they do real science.  But they also operate on limited
tax dollars and they also have the same sort of infection related to
that fact that the NAS has to a larger degree and which has killed the
credibility of the IPCC.  As such, they do often publish material
which is somewhat pandering to the pop media.  Chicken little is good
for income. Unlike the IPCC, however, and unlike some of the blatent
frauds, at least NASA doesn't lie about the data.   Read the actual
data, not the various creative data mined pseudoscience kook rantings.

How about this, from NASA, http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/
"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. 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."

William R. James