A Measurement of CO2 Climate Forcing, and an estimation of it's increase.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: A Measurement of CO2 Climate Forcing, and an estimation of it's increase.
Next: brain and mind as a radio receiver and the best definition of Life vs. Nonlife #256 Atom Totality & #28 Brain Locus
From: John Park on 2 Aug 2010 00:54 Last Post (last_post(a)primus.ca) writes: > 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. > > =D8 There is NO climate forcing by CO2 and > "other greenhouse gases" >> >> http://www.nature.com > > =D8 Nature is not a peer-reviewed journal Since when? --John Park
From: Tom P on 2 Aug 2010 07:47 On 08/02/2010 12:20 AM, Claudius Denk wrote: > On Aug 1, 2:39 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 > > Roger, you can't say you weren't given an opportunity to make a > retraction. Read the first sentence in the Nature article again: "The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established" You could even try moving your lips at the same time. Now read this sentence: "Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect" Now try reading this sentence: "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." Get it?
From: Tom P on 2 Aug 2010 09:13 On 08/02/2010 01:46 AM, Last Post wrote: > On Aug 1, 7:08 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 8/1/10 4:38 PM, Last Post wrote: >> >>> 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 >> >> THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI) >> http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ > > Ø A total waste of time and space > > > GH GAS | TOTAL | NATUR |MAN MADE > ——————————————————————————————— > H2O Vapour | 95.000% | 94.999% |0.001% 95% of what? Your figures are totally meaningless. The average water vapour column in the atmosphere is approximately 2.5 centimeters - meaning if you condensed all the WV out of the atmosphere, it would amount to a puddle about 1 inch deep. If you then condensed all the CO2 out of the atmosphere as dry ice, you'd find that there is only around 6 times as much WV in the atmosphere as there is CO2. Surprising? The reason is that the WV is restricted to the first few km of the atmosphere by the temperature profile. CO2 is not restricted - effectively it forms a greenhouse gas layer on top of the WV layer. T.
From: Tom P on 2 Aug 2010 13:16 On 08/02/2010 04:07 PM, Androcles wrote: > > "Tom P"<werotizy(a)freent.dd> wrote in message > news:8bnujuFnqhU1(a)mid.individual.net... > | On 08/02/2010 01:46 AM, Last Post wrote: > |> On Aug 1, 7:08 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > |>> On 8/1/10 4:38 PM, Last Post wrote: > |>> > |>>> 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 > |>> > |>> THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI) > |>> http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ > |> > |> Ø A total waste of time and space > |> > |> > |> GH GAS | TOTAL | NATUR |MAN MADE > |> ——————————————————————————————— > |> H2O Vapour | 95.000% | 94.999% |0.001% > | > | > | 95% of what? Your figures are totally meaningless. > | > | The average water vapour column in the atmosphere is approximately 2.5 > | centimeters - meaning if you condensed all the WV out of the atmosphere, > | it would amount to a puddle about 1 inch deep. > > Bwhahahahahahaha! Is that what flooded Pakistan to a depth of 1 inch? > Clouds are just too big to be seen, right? Before spouting your claptrap, you should check your facts. "The annual mean global concentration of water vapor would yield about 25 mm of liquid water over the entire surface of the Earth if it were to instantly fall as rain." Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor#Water_vapor_in_Earth.27s_atmosphere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor#Radar_and_satellite_imaging
From: Tom P on 3 Aug 2010 03:21
On 08/01/2010 11:38 PM, Last Post wrote: > 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. > > � There is NO climate forcing by CO2 and > "other greenhouse gases" So why is Venus so hot? |