Water vapour, the unknown factor, till now. [moved]
-
:suss: fat_boy?
-
pshaw. don't you know that some things are just too exciting to get right ?
-
Water Vapor Largely Responsible for Global Warming..."What I will say, is that this shows there are climate scientists round the world who are trying very hard to understand and to explain to people openly and honestly what has happened over the last decade." ...The research, facilitated by a state-of-the-art NASA satellite codenamed AIRS, suggests that water vapor is responsible for twice the global warming effect of carbon dioxide, both man-made and naturally occurring. While this theory was has been carried by climate change skeptics for some time, global warming advocates dismissed them, saying that water vapor in the atmosphere was only a feedback effect caused by human emissions. NASA scientist Eric Fetzer say that the new study created models much more accurate to past events than those previously used by climate change advocates, and proves that "water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned." [^] It looks like the issue of water vapour, always discounted by the GCMs, is being explored more completely. Lets hope with the current fiasco taking pace at the IPCC, and CRU that we might see some more mature science, and prognostications, in the future.
moved on Wednesday, February 3, 2010 5:16 PM
What concerns me, is that someone like fat boy would post a link like this, then the next day post a link to say the earth is cooling, not warming. In other words, is there a single scientific approach, or is there a scattershot approach to believe anything that rejects the current status quo ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
http://www.ecofactory.com/news/noaa-nasa-water-vapor-largely-responsible-global-warming-012910[^]:
The research, facilitated by a state-of-the-art NASA satellite codenamed AIRS, suggests that water vapor is responsible for twice the global warming effect of carbon dioxide, both man-made and naturally occurring.
Pay close attention to the bit in bold...
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html[^]
Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
...and again, the bit in bold. The second article, used as a source by the first, implies that water vapor acts as an amplifier on warming caused by CO2, not a separate and doubly-effective factor in warming. A small change in wording, but a rather large difference in meaning! Nate Kharrl needs to go back to grade school.
No, no, no, no. You are supposed to read the text like a 100% dyslectic, claim that you have read it all and understood it all. Then you google for information that supports your claim, no matter what the source is, and exlaim QED. It'll take you a while though, because remember, you are 100% dyslectic. When people dismiss you as being a real spamming pain in the ass, you will start whining about it, just like 5 year olds do. You will then come to the conclusion that you are the martyr victim, and everybody else is actively out to get you. What were you thinking?
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
Heh, don't be silly. I'm sure "nick" joined the site last Friday for the scintillating discussions that frequently pop up here... and just hasn't quite had time to participate in any of them yet... :rolleyes:
It sure is nice to see you, Chris, etc, back here. It's like the good old days. Perhaps all we need to do is annoy CSS once a week, so he goes off and sulks, and we could have REAL conversations back here.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
It sure is nice to see you, Chris, etc, back here. It's like the good old days. Perhaps all we need to do is annoy CSS once a week, so he goes off and sulks, and we could have REAL conversations back here.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Now Christian, a few questions. What are the requirements to join SoapBox 1? Who do applications to join SoapBox 1 go to for approval. If you knight the OP and use a full first name, then check Google, you will find certain interesting stuff. I know not the identity of the OP but there could be a bit of misinformation going on :rolleyes:
-
Now Christian, a few questions. What are the requirements to join SoapBox 1? Who do applications to join SoapBox 1 go to for approval. If you knight the OP and use a full first name, then check Google, you will find certain interesting stuff. I know not the identity of the OP but there could be a bit of misinformation going on :rolleyes:
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
What are the requirements to join SoapBox 1?
You mean this forum ? There are none, people just post. I am a mod because everyone else backed out. That IS interesting. I always thought it was a troll tho, if it's fat boy or not. The [moved] makes me think this was posted in the lounge and moved here.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
What are the requirements to join SoapBox 1?
You mean this forum ? There are none, people just post. I am a mod because everyone else backed out. That IS interesting. I always thought it was a troll tho, if it's fat boy or not. The [moved] makes me think this was posted in the lounge and moved here.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
It sure is nice to see you, Chris, etc, back here. It's like the good old days. Perhaps all we need to do is annoy CSS once a week, so he goes off and sulks, and we could have REAL conversations back here.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
ou mean this forum ?
No this is the Backroom. I mean the new Soapbox 1 [^]. If my post above was too cryptic I'll give a link later ... And yes it was in the lounge originally
OK - you have to ask Oakman to let you in. He typically lets anyone in bar CSS and Ilion. It's only then that he acts like an ass to them.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
OK, well, for a moment, it seemed like a lot of the old guard was suddenly back here, I guess that explained it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
OK - you have to ask Oakman to let you in. He typically lets anyone in bar CSS and Ilion. It's only then that he acts like an ass to them.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
[Speculation on my part ... ] I said [quote] If you knight the OP and use a full first name, then check Google, you will find certain interesting stuff. [/quote] I forgot to say he is a Professor and recently made a life peer. Rules to join soapbox 1 (rule 1 : You must have been an active member of Code Project for at least six months. That means that you have posted regularly or had at least one article published.) OP is Nick Stern. Knight him makes him a Sir Full first name gives Nicholas Full name is Sir Nicholas Stern (now promoted to the Lords) and he is "Head of the UK Government Economic Service and Adviser to the Government on the economics of climate change and development". The OP's subject was Global Warming. The OP account has only existed a few days. I'm not suggesting it is fat_boy but ???? The link : http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm[^] [/speculation]
-
[Speculation on my part ... ] I said [quote] If you knight the OP and use a full first name, then check Google, you will find certain interesting stuff. [/quote] I forgot to say he is a Professor and recently made a life peer. Rules to join soapbox 1 (rule 1 : You must have been an active member of Code Project for at least six months. That means that you have posted regularly or had at least one article published.) OP is Nick Stern. Knight him makes him a Sir Full first name gives Nicholas Full name is Sir Nicholas Stern (now promoted to the Lords) and he is "Head of the UK Government Economic Service and Adviser to the Government on the economics of climate change and development". The OP's subject was Global Warming. The OP account has only existed a few days. I'm not suggesting it is fat_boy but ???? The link : http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm[^] [/speculation]
Yeah, I got all that. I followed your instructions and found the name. Membership in the soapbox 1.0 means not being a troll by OAKMAN's definition. So, Oakman or fat boy trolling, does not count.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
[Speculation on my part ... ] I said [quote] If you knight the OP and use a full first name, then check Google, you will find certain interesting stuff. [/quote] I forgot to say he is a Professor and recently made a life peer. Rules to join soapbox 1 (rule 1 : You must have been an active member of Code Project for at least six months. That means that you have posted regularly or had at least one article published.) OP is Nick Stern. Knight him makes him a Sir Full first name gives Nicholas Full name is Sir Nicholas Stern (now promoted to the Lords) and he is "Head of the UK Government Economic Service and Adviser to the Government on the economics of climate change and development". The OP's subject was Global Warming. The OP account has only existed a few days. I'm not suggesting it is fat_boy but ???? The link : http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm[^] [/speculation]
I never publiched an atricle and Oakman positively asked me to join his forum. Basically, its the old soapbox without CSS and Illion. I dont know why Illion, he had been around a long time and hadnt caused that much offence. CSS was, as you know, a diferent matter. He is probably deranged and mentally unstable. Aggressive and a drug user. Although he was also clever, he spoofed me once using an Arabic text reversal tag very effectively. It was him who destroyed the SB really.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
http://www.ecofactory.com/news/noaa-nasa-water-vapor-largely-responsible-global-warming-012910[^]:
The research, facilitated by a state-of-the-art NASA satellite codenamed AIRS, suggests that water vapor is responsible for twice the global warming effect of carbon dioxide, both man-made and naturally occurring.
Pay close attention to the bit in bold...
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html[^]
Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
...and again, the bit in bold. The second article, used as a source by the first, implies that water vapor acts as an amplifier on warming caused by CO2, not a separate and doubly-effective factor in warming. A small change in wording, but a rather large difference in meaning! Nate Kharrl needs to go back to grade school.
The first part you highlight cobntinues "While this theory was has been carried by climate change skeptics for some time, global warming advocates dismissed them" This is saying that untill now water vapour has been discounted by the AGW crowd. This research sugests that in fact is is twice as powerfull as CO2. So, from AR3 to AR4 the IPCC reduced CO2 forcing from 2.4 to 1.7 W/m^2 s^-1. This study suggests that that figure be reduced even further. What is ujnisial about this? The IPCC stated at the time that 4/5ths of factors affecting climate have "very low level of scientific understanding" (I would quote but the IPCC have messed up thier website and the links to the figures are a mess and broken), so it is expected that as more research is done and the rest of the forcings understood then CO2 forcing gets adjusted. The second bit you highlight just confirms the first. Water vapour is twice as powerfull as CO2. It states it *could* act as an amplifier. In fact the first paper specifically speculates that water vapour acts as a negative feed back on CO2 warming. -- edit-- Look, what is good for me about this is that it shows that research is still being carried out (in this case because the earth stoped playing ball with the models). The science is not settled. The case for AGW rests entirely on the fact that the measured warming from 1970 to 1998 can not be explained. Bob Watson recently stated this. He said that since they cant explain it the only thing left is man made CO2 and so that must be the cause. A heck of a lot has been said based on this very shaky premis, and it is time that some propper research is done. This article suggests that that is now starting to happen.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
modified on Thursday, February 4, 2010 2:31 AM
-
pshaw. don't you know that some things are just too exciting to get right ?
You should read my response to Shog if you are interested in what is right. --- edit--- You can look at the news too: Many of the emails reveal strenuous efforts by the mainstream climate scientists to do what outside observers would regard as censoring their critics. And the correspondence raises awkward questions about the effectiveness of peer review – the supposed gold standard of scientific merit – and the operation of the UN's top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).[^] AGW is coming apart. For a paprer like the Guardian which has had a guy called Monbiot telling us airline executives should be thrown form their planes for the damage they do to african farmers to run articles that show the scientific process behind AGW has been subjected to bias is remarkable.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
modified on Thursday, February 4, 2010 2:44 AM
-
No, no, no, no. You are supposed to read the text like a 100% dyslectic, claim that you have read it all and understood it all. Then you google for information that supports your claim, no matter what the source is, and exlaim QED. It'll take you a while though, because remember, you are 100% dyslectic. When people dismiss you as being a real spamming pain in the ass, you will start whining about it, just like 5 year olds do. You will then come to the conclusion that you are the martyr victim, and everybody else is actively out to get you. What were you thinking?
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
I take it then you didnt read the linked article? I am almost tempted to get angry with your insults, but whats the point. If you want to selectively believe what you read, or even ignore what you could read, in order to maintain a particular view of the world then I will leave you peacefully in your state of ignorance. Be carefull of the final jolt back to reality, it might be a little harder to bear though.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
What concerns me, is that someone like fat boy would post a link like this, then the next day post a link to say the earth is cooling, not warming. In other words, is there a single scientific approach, or is there a scattershot approach to believe anything that rejects the current status quo ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Actually Christian this article is all about explaining the last 10 years of lack of warming. What disturns me is the satellite data. The unadjusted data showed that tropospheric warming stopped in 1990. At the time that data was verified by weather baloons, but as you know later adjusted to show warming. What I dont get is how weather baloons, the mainstay of atmospheric science for centuries, have suddenly become unreliable. And if the original satellite data is correect then the warming from 1970 to 1990 is quite short and anything there after is just UHI. But anyway, what is a global average? The NCDC GISS expose recently caused people to look at raw station data. Darwin for example has been cooling for decades. So how are any of us supposed to know which data is valid and which instruments are usable! I tell you what, the IPC, and CRU (GISS and NCDC too) need taking over by honest scientists who in a totally non political way sort out this mess. This article seemed to me to be the beginnings of such a process.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
No, no, no, no. You are supposed to read the text like a 100% dyslectic, claim that you have read it all and understood it all. Then you google for information that supports your claim, no matter what the source is, and exlaim QED. It'll take you a while though, because remember, you are 100% dyslectic. When people dismiss you as being a real spamming pain in the ass, you will start whining about it, just like 5 year olds do. You will then come to the conclusion that you are the martyr victim, and everybody else is actively out to get you. What were you thinking?
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
Actually fuck being reasonable. I won you lost! Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer reviewA close reading of the hacked emails [^] Mainstream liberal media that was previously so supportive of AGW is now turning and shredding it, just as I predicted. Its over, the games up. AGW is a crock of shit and you dont even have the balls to face it! You are pathetic, with your whinging whining feeble little snipes and digs. I was right all along, AGW was a load of bollocks based on lies and scientific thuggery. You lost. Ha, fuck you you asshole. How does it feel to be a prick AND wrong?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
I never publiched an atricle and Oakman positively asked me to join his forum. Basically, its the old soapbox without CSS and Illion. I dont know why Illion, he had been around a long time and hadnt caused that much offence. CSS was, as you know, a diferent matter. He is probably deranged and mentally unstable. Aggressive and a drug user. Although he was also clever, he spoofed me once using an Arabic text reversal tag very effectively. It was him who destroyed the SB really.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
The point is entirely that someone is trolling about AGW, and you're the one people think of.
fat_boy wrote:
It was him who destroyed the SB really.
Well, he definitely defined it. As Oakman is defining his little forum. I'm not saying they are the same, CSS is obviously mentally ill, unstable and delusional. But, Oakman shares other charactistics with CSS, much as he drove me out of his forum for trying to point that out to him.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.