A Measurement of CO2 Climate Forcing, and an estimation of it's increase.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: 9-11 Truth - Inside Job
Next: Brain Locus as Radio Re: Precision definition of life versus nonlife Chapt 21 #255 Atom Totality #27 Brain Locus theory
From: Claudius Denk on 1 Aug 2010 17:13 On Aug 1, 2:04 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...(a)adnc.com> wrote: > You seem to have trouble with the basic science. > I expected many people on this forum would, that > is why I included the following link in my original post: > > To get a grip on global warming science, Here are some lectures > recorded in a classroom at a world class university: > > http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FA75A0DDB89ACCD7 > > On Aug 1, 1:58 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 1:33 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...(a)adnc.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 1, 1:21 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 1:16 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...(a)adnc.com> wrote: > > > > > > An actual measurement of the climate forcing by > > > > > CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and an estimate > > > > > of the growth of that forcing over time. > > > > > >http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html > > > > > I read your link thoroughly. Unfortunately I was unable to find > > > > anything therein that can be described as, "actual measurement of the > > > > climate forcing by CO2 and other greenhouse gases." Might I have > > > > missed it? Maybe you could be so kind as to cut and paste something > > > > from the text that specifically substantiates this assertion? > > > > > Thanks in advance for your response. > > > > Letters to Nature > > > Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553; Received > > > 17 May 2000; Accepted 15 January 2001 > > > > Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave > > > radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 > > > I think I see your error, Roger. The title that you supplied here > > specifically refers to inference, not measurement. Possibly you have > > mistakenly considered inference and measurement to be interchangeable > > terms. I assure you they are not. > > > Would you now like to make a retraction of your claim regarding, > > " . . . actual measurement of the climate forcing by CO2 and other > > greenhouse gases?" All things considered I think it would be best if > > you did. > > > > John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. > > > Bantges > > > > Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial > > > College, London SW7 2BW, UK > > > Correspondence to: John E. Harries Correspondence and requests for > > > materials should be addressed to J.E.H. (e-mail: Email: > > > j.harr...(a)ic.ac.uk). > > > > Top of page > > > The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, > > > and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and > > > greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is > > > complicated by several feedback processesmost importantly the > > > hydrological cyclethat are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the > > > Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the > > > spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of > > > how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that > > > are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse > > > the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation > > > of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We > > > find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in > > > atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results > > > provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the > > > Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over > > > radiative forcing of climate. Don't you think you'd feel better if you just made the retraction?
From: James on 1 Aug 2010 17:30 "Roger Coppock" <rcoppock(a)adnc.com> wrote in message news:a74fd4f8-097b-4df5-b73d-95e254b29fa1(a)k8g2000prh.googlegroups.com > You seem to have trouble with the basic science. > I expected many people on this forum would, that > is why I included the following link in my original post: > > To get a grip on global warming science, Here are some lectures > recorded in a classroom at a world class university: > > http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FA75A0DDB89ACCD7 > > > On Aug 1, 1:58 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> On Aug 1, 1:33 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...(a)adnc.com> wrote: >> >>> On Aug 1, 1:21 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>>> On Aug 1, 1:16 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...(a)adnc.com> wrote: >> >>>>> An actual measurement of the climate forcing by >>>>> CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and an estimate >>>>> of the growth of that forcing over time. >> >>>>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html >> >>>> I read your link thoroughly. Unfortunately I was unable to find >>>> anything therein that can be described as, "actual measurement of >>>> the climate forcing by CO2 and other greenhouse gases." Might I >>>> have missed it? Maybe you could be so kind as to cut and paste >>>> something from the text that specifically substantiates this >>>> assertion? >> >>>> Thanks in advance for your response. >> >>> Letters to Nature >>> Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553; Received >>> 17 May 2000; Accepted 15 January 2001 >> >>> Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave >>> radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 >> >> I think I see your error, Roger. The title that you supplied here >> specifically refers to inference, not measurement. Possibly you have >> mistakenly considered inference and measurement to be interchangeable >> terms. I assure you they are not. >> >> Would you now like to make a retraction of your claim regarding, >> " . . . actual measurement of the climate forcing by CO2 and other >> greenhouse gases?" All things considered I think it would be best if >> you did. >> >> >> >> >> >>> John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. >>> Bantges >> >>> Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial >>> College, London SW7 2BW, UK >>> Correspondence to: John E. Harries Correspondence and requests for >>> materials should be addressed to J.E.H. (e-mail: Email: >>> j.harr...(a)ic.ac.uk). >> >>> Top of page >>> The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, >>> 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and >>> greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is >>> complicated by several feedback processes�most importantly the >>> hydrological cycle�that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in >>> the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the >>> spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure >>> of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the >>> gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. >>> Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing >>> longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft >>> in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to >>> long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 >>> and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a >>> significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is >>> consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate. Hell Roger, you don't even tap dance very good.
From: Last Post on 1 Aug 2010 17:38 On Aug 1, 4:16 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...(a)adnc.com> wrote: > An actual measurement of the climate forcing by > CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and an estimate > of the growth of that forcing over time. Ø There is NO climate forcing by CO2 and "other greenhouse gases" > > http://www.nature.com Ø Nature is not a peer-reviewed journal
From: Roger Coppock on 1 Aug 2010 17:39 You seem to have trouble with the basic science. I expected many people on this forum would, that is why I included the following link in my original post: To get a grip on global warming science, Here are some lectures recorded in a classroom at a world class university: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FA75A0DDB89ACCD7 On Aug 1, 2:30 pm, "James" <kingko...(a)iglou.com> wrote: > "Roger Coppock" <rcopp...(a)adnc.com> wrote in message > > news:a74fd4f8-097b-4df5-b73d-95e254b29fa1(a)k8g2000prh.googlegroups.com > > > You seem to have trouble with the basic science. > > I expected many people on this forum would, that > > is why I included the following link in my original post: > > > To get a grip on global warming science, Here are some lectures > > recorded in a classroom at a world class university: > > >http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FA75A0DDB89ACCD7 > > > On Aug 1, 1:58 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> On Aug 1, 1:33 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...(a)adnc.com> wrote: > > >>> On Aug 1, 1:21 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >>>> On Aug 1, 1:16 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...(a)adnc.com> wrote: > > >>>>> An actual measurement of the climate forcing by > >>>>> CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and an estimate > >>>>> of the growth of that forcing over time. > > >>>>>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html > > >>>> I read your link thoroughly. Unfortunately I was unable to find > >>>> anything therein that can be described as, "actual measurement of > >>>> the climate forcing by CO2 and other greenhouse gases." Might I > >>>> have missed it? Maybe you could be so kind as to cut and paste > >>>> something from the text that specifically substantiates this > >>>> assertion? > > >>>> Thanks in advance for your response. > > >>> Letters to Nature > >>> Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001) | doi:10.1038/35066553; Received > >>> 17 May 2000; Accepted 15 January 2001 > > >>> Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave > >>> radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 > > >> I think I see your error, Roger. The title that you supplied here > >> specifically refers to inference, not measurement. Possibly you have > >> mistakenly considered inference and measurement to be interchangeable > >> terms. I assure you they are not. > > >> Would you now like to make a retraction of your claim regarding, > >> " . . . actual measurement of the climate forcing by CO2 and other > >> greenhouse gases?" All things considered I think it would be best if > >> you did. > > >>> John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. > >>> Bantges > > >>> Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial > >>> College, London SW7 2BW, UK > >>> Correspondence to: John E. Harries Correspondence and requests for > >>> materials should be addressed to J.E.H. (e-mail: Email: > >>> j.harr...(a)ic.ac.uk). > > >>> Top of page > >>> The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, > >>> 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and > >>> greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is > >>> complicated by several feedback processesmost importantly the > >>> hydrological cyclethat are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in > >>> the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the > >>> spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure > >>> of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the > >>> gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. > >>> Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing > >>> longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft > >>> in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to > >>> long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 > >>> and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a > >>> significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is > >>> consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate. > > Hell Roger, you don't even tap dance very good.
From: Last Post on 1 Aug 2010 17:58
On Aug 1, 5:39 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...(a)adnc.com> wrote: > Hell Roger, you don't even tap dance very good. Ø He is desperately flogging a dead horse. The climate is step by step showing him and his AGW fascist buddies that their game is over. He/they see it is hot today it is global warming. They get 2 feet of snow in DC it's global warming. Ø You are going to get a lot of hot summers and cold winters for the next 10 to 20 yrs Look up the 1,500 year trend - the only one that counts. Of course Roger the Dodger does not read my posts He is afraid I will tell him things he does not like. Of course he can not abide the truth it hurts too much. There are three types of people that you can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil. 1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the logic of what you say. You have to tell them what is right in very simple terms. If they do not agree, you will never be able to change their mind. 2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes against their religious belief, they will cling to that belief even if it means their death. 3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a million years. There is no way to convince anthropogenic_global_warming_alarmists, terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and predators to change their evil ways, They knew what they were doing was wrong, but knowledge didn't stop them. It only made them more careful in how they went about performing their evil deeds. |