Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gregory Benvenuti on January 14, 2010 at 11:09pm

Jeff, you should put up the goods regarding RealClimate. You're the one making the claims. Proof that they're shills for alarmists? Who are the alarmists anyway? Your link to some blog is hardly damning. So what if the site is sponsored by an environmental advocacy group? RealClimate does nothing but present the science as it appears in the literature -it's the content of the site that matters. I'd be interested to see who's behind some of the sceptical web sites? So please produce emails between Schmidt and the Illuminati or the one world government, or the green marxist global secret cabal, before I'll believe they're part of a grand conspiracy. See if you can get one of your denier cronies to hack into NASA GISS's system.

And anyway, I don't see how RealClimate's existence has anything to do with whether AGW is real or not. Sorry go find another red herring.

Permalink Reply by Gregory Benvenuti on January 15, 2010 at 12:08am

Oh for crying in a bucket. Get over this RealClimate thing. What? Is your aversion to it because they have all these clever science people actually explaining to people what the scientific literature says? So that lay people may actually understand it. What frauding scientists at RealClimate? You should actually be had up for character assassination. Prove that any of them are fraudsters!

You ask Jim for ONE paper that proves CO2 emissions cause warming. Well since this has been known for a long time I had to find a document from 1901! Look! It's fom realclimate. Maybe they fraudulently made up this page from a 100 year old weather journal!
Another one

Nice and short - one page. Compares IPCC model predictions with actual measurement. I wait eagerly for your learned rebuttal. Oh just noticed this one's by Rahmstorf who contributes to RealClimate. Hey, maybe it is a conspiracy. Bwhaha ahaha evil grin

And finally an abstract. Can't get full article online. But this one proves the radiation models of CO2 and shows why it's a greenhouse gas. Good luck debunking this one! So there, three papers which demonstrate the greenhouse effect. What now?

Line-by-line calculation of atmospheric fluxes and cooling rates 2. Application to carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, nitrous oxide and the halocarbons

Line-by-line calculation of atmospheric fluxes and cooling rates 2. Application to carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, nitrous oxide and the halocarbons
S. A. Clough

Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts

M. J. Iacono

Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts

A line-by-line model (LBLRTM) has been applied to the calculation of clear-sky longwave fluxes and cooling rates for atmospheres including CO2, O3, CH4, N2O, CCl4, CFC-11, CFC-12, and CFC-22 in addition to water vapor. The present paper continues the approach developed in an earlier article in which the radiative properties of atmospheres with water vapor alone were reported. Tropospheric water vapor continues to be of principal importance for the longwave region due to the spectral extent of its absorbing properties, while the absorption bands of other trace species have influence over limited spectral domains. The principal effects of adding carbon dioxide are to reduce the role of the water vapor in the lower troposphere and to provide 72% of the 13.0 K d−1 cooling rate at the stratopause. In general, the introduction of uniformly mixed trace species into atmospheres with significant amounts of water vapor has the effect of reducing the cooling associated with water vapor, providing an apparent net atmospheric heating. The radiative consequences of doubling carbon dioxide from the present level are consistent with these results. For the midlatitude summer atmosphere the heating associated with ozone that occurs from 500 to 20 mbar reaches a maximum of 0.25 K d−1 at 50 mbar and partially offsets the cooling of 1.0 K d−1 contributed by H2O and CO2 at this level. In the stratosphere the 704 cm−1 band of ozone, not included in many radiation models, contributes 25% of the ozone cooling rate. Radiative effects associated with anticipated 10-year constituent profile changes, 1990–2000, are presented from both a spectral and spectrally integrated perspective. The effect of the trace gases has been studied for three atmospheres: tropical, midlatitude summer, and midlatitude winter. Using these results and making a reasonable approximation for the polar regions, we obtain a value for the longwave flux at the top of the atmosphere of 265.5 W m−2, in close agreement with the clear-sky Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) observations. This agreement provides strong support for the present approach as a reference method for the study of radiative effects resulting from changes in the distributions of trace species on global radiative forcing. Many of the results from the spectral calculations reported here are archived at the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center for use by the community.

Received 4 October 1994; accepted 12 April 1995; .

Citation: Clough, S. A., and M. J. Iacono (1995), Line-by-line calculation of atmospheric fluxes and cooling rates 2. Application to carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, nitrous oxide and the halocarbons, J. Geophys. Res., 100(D8), 16,519–16,535.

PS added hyperlinks but didn't appear in the edit page. I'll add again if they don't show up. Anyway, Geoff, you can start by mounting a rebuttal to this last abstract. Maybe you can call on the other smarty pants, Cox who knows SO much about the radiative qualities of the greenhouse gases. Look, he can even access their calcs from the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Centre. He can now check his own line-by-line model with theirs. Perfect.

Permalink Reply by Gregory Benvenuti on January 15, 2010 at 12:29am

Booooooring! The more hysterical you septics become the more funny this is. Sen Inhofe? You must be joking. Anyway, Mann's hockey stick already made it through Congress. And anyway even if Mann was shown to have produced fraudulent work and we ignored everything he has done, it wouldn't make a jot of difference to the fact that CO2 emissions result in increasing global temperatures. Mann's work is mainly on temperature reconstructions from the past. Get with it, please.

Permalink Reply by Gregory Benvenuti on January 15, 2010 at 12:30am

Oh and now because every nerd has access to the code from CRU they can all do better. Right. Funny that with NASA GISS's data been available for yonks, not one septic has come up with an alternate temperature series. Not even Mr Genius Steve McIntyre. They're big talk and no bloody action. Bunch of losers.

Permalink Reply by Gregory Benvenuti on January 15, 2010 at 12:34am

Oh please. Munchkin has a "station" (mind you) that deserves respect! If Munchkin didn't spout the most outrageous nonsense every time he opens his gob, I might have some respect for him. Did you read that pitiful epistle that he wrote to Rudd? Tries to get all sciencey. Tim Lambert slapped that down, no problem. You can bow before Lord Munchkin, Jeff. Not my bag.

Permalink Reply by Gregory Benvenuti on January 15, 2010 at 12:47am

Thanks for the info about the moon. I get it. Have since 1st year physics. If your mate's work is peer reviewed then I'm sure it will find it's place in the scientific literature. Let's just clarify one thing. Not everything that's peer reviewed is right. Peer review ensures (well should, anyway) that blatantly wrong stuff doesn't get published. That doesn't mean that work that does not stand up to scrutiny won't get published. The Russian's guy's stuff probably doesn not fit in with current consensus understanding of the sun's role in the climate. That issue will out in the literature.

Peer review is not a perfect process. Science does not progress smoothly. But, in general, scientists get things right in the end. They have in medicine, they have in biology, they have in physics, they have in economics (hmm...not sure myself about that one). Anyway, point is, it is highly highly highly unlikely that so many scientists got the whole of the global warming thing wrong. Think about it. If it WAS wrong, and they're all keeping schtum because they want research dollars, then what would be the temptation for one to go AWOL and blow the whole thing out the water and get a nobel prize? I just don't buy this denier story about suppressing dissent. It's not evidenced in the literature see Lindzen, Spencer, etc and it doesn't stand up to logic either.

Permalink Reply by Ray Jamieson on January 15, 2010 at 12:55am

Gregory, I didn't dismiss the whole branch because it can't be reduced to six words, I dismissed it because it failed the EVIDENCE TEST!

Below, you said: "Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds
Robert J. Allen & Steven C. Sherwood"

Evidence would have seen the word DEDUCED replaced by MEASURED. You can't measure it, but you can think it should be there, or deduce it should be there, so it is. I deduce that I should have a million bucks in my bank account now, based on the hours I work and the fees based on that work. OK, according to my deductions, I'm a millionaire. Bloody bank doesn't think so - guess who's right? And yes, you can take that one to the bank.

Evidence is cold, hard fact, or in this case, hot spot measurement. Not deduction. If it's there, you can measure it. If it's not, you can't.

"Climate models that piss you off so much are just complex calculations based on known climate behaviour"... Trouble is that we know so little about the climate and weather that we can't even predict accurately a week or a month in advance what it's going to do - because we don't know all the variables. What you should say there is that "they are based on all the climate variables THAT WE KNOW, noting that there are many we don't know about, and therefore the predictions will have a very wide error margin". Then you might get my respect and that of a lot more people. The ones in that field might like to join in and help you find more of the variables, so your model works better, but predicting off a poorly loaded computer program doesn't cut it!

Don't take it to heart Gregory, you don't have to be successful in converting me here. If the evidence was here, it would speak for itself!
Ray Jamieson

Permalink Reply by Ray Jamieson on January 15, 2010 at 1:09am

Gregory Mate, AGW is a theory that was put forward many years ago, and we all know that story. However, it has yet to be proven! We don't need to DISprove something that isn't proven! The models put forward what AGW was going to do and they were spectacularly wrong. All the evidence I have seen, from an engineering viewpoint also, is that result after result points to AGW being fundmentally flawed!

There is yet to be anything to DISprove, because it has yet to work for you! Just take a look at the northern hemisphere at the moment! What will it take to convince you that when the mercury in the lil tube goes down, it means it is colder? Hundreds of people are freezing to death or dying from the cold through accidents, it's totally unseasonal according to the newspapers, but it actually happened a number of times this last decade! The peak average annual GLOBAL temperature in the last decade was a decade ago! At least three northern winters since then have been record breakers, surely that must mean something. If the planet was heating up, it wouldn't be like that! The antarctic icepack wouldn't be thickening and growing either, there would be evidence of a global thaw, but the only ice we see thawing is ice shelf ice with warm currents under it breaking off (calving) as it perfectly natural for them!

You need to provide some evidence of AGW happening, and then we can take this a step further. If we need to.
Ray Jamieson

Permalink Reply by Ray Jamieson on January 15, 2010 at 1:17am

Why tax CO2 when you have yet to prove it is a pollutant?

Permalink Reply by Gregory Benvenuti on January 15, 2010 at 1:35am

In my posts directed at you, Ray, we've been through your consistent denying of any evidence when it is presented to you. Read through some of my other posts and you'll see i've actually attached some links to scientific papers and abstracts which demonstrate the effect of CO2 on the earth's temperature.

Do you agree with Tony Abbott's stance that global warming is real and that he is going to cut Australia's emissions? Why would he do that if CO2 isn't a "pollutant"? So now you've gotta argue with the Tone. Better put your boxing gloves on. And your budgie smugglers!

Permalink Reply by Ray Jamieson on January 15, 2010 at 1:36am

So tell us what you think Suzi. We are looking for a reason to continue this discussion - what are we missing here? Jim and Gregory want us to disprove a theory that is not yet proven. They are asking the impossible, according to my rational way of thinking.

Would love to have your input!
Ray Jamieson

Permalink Reply by Ray Jamieson on January 15, 2010 at 1:43am

"the fact that CO2 emissions result in increasing global temperatures"

PROVE IT! WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? A lag of 800 years is not proof.. This is a bland and unsupported statement!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• …
• 12
• Next ›
• Page