AGWists are sore losers
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Relativity: Einstein's lost frame
Next: DISCOVERY OF BRIGHT GALAXIES IN THE DISTANT UNIVERSE AND A VARIABLE GRAVITATIONAL 'CONSTANT'
From: Bill Ward on 5 Sep 2007 02:37 On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:48:13 -0700, Phil. wrote: > On Sep 4, 9:57 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 15:18:02 -0700, Phil. wrote: >> > On Sep 4, 4:58 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 11:49:24 -0700, Phil. wrote: >> >> > On Sep 4, 1:50 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 06:47:19 -0700, Phil. wrote: >> >> >> > On Sep 3, 11:04 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> >> <snip prior posts> >> >> >> >> >> I think they are way overstating the magnitude of the effect of >> >> >> >> traces of CO2 compared to thousands of times more water vapor. >> >> >> >> > Which planet is that? 380ppmv times one thousand is 38% that's >> >> >> > a very wet (and hot) place! >> >> >> >> You're right. I dropped a decimal point. Mea culpa. Or I guess I >> >> >> could claim a "colloquialism". >> >> >> > Actually two and since when has 'thousands' been a 'colloquialism' >> >> > for tens? Incidentally this is a science newsgroup. >> >> >> >> > More like 20X max to 1/3 in the troposphere, much less in the >> >> >> > stratosphere. >> >> >> >> >> And they are invoking dubious positive feedback properties of >> >> >> >> WV while ignoring its obvious negative feedbacks from cloud >> >> >> >> formation. I agree it looks totally bogus, biased, and >> >> >> >> unscientific. >> >> >> >> > The feedback of temperature on Water vapor is well known and >> >> >> > described by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. >> >> >> >> Impressive way to talk about humidity. Consider the possibility >> >> >> that you may not be the only person in the NG to have taken >> >> >> P.Chem. >> >> >> > Maybe but I imagine that you can use Google? Again it's a science >> >> > newsgroup, you said that the link between water vapor pressure and >> >> > temperature >> >> >> It makes your position look desperate when you resort to misquoting. >> >> I said "dubious positive feedback properties of WV", not "the link >> >> between water vapor pressure and temperature". >> >> > The positive feedback of WV is that it's vapor pressure increases with >> > temperature, what else were you referring to? >> >> Your hidden assumption that increased WV would increase the temperature. >> in spite of your link to the contrary below. > > > Ah so you think that it's "totally bogus, biased, and unscientific" to > think that an increase in the most powerful greenhouse gas in our > atmosphere would increase the gh effect. I suppose that it's unbiased and > scientific to assume as you do that instead that increase will create more > clouds and cool the atmosphere despite the absence of any evidence to > suuport you. "Recent observational studies show that these effects [from increased WV] almost balance, but that the cooling effect is somewhat more important." Guess where that came from. You need to read your links. >> >> "looks totally bogus, biased, and unscientific" whereas I >> >> >> > showed that there is a precise scientific relationship, then you >> >> > complain that I'm being too scientific, >> >> >> No, I think you are attempting to intimidate by being pretentious, >> >> and not being scientific enough. If, as you apparently assume, you >> >> are the only educated person in the group, then you should use >> >> phrases that would be more familiar to us. It makes you look like >> >> you are trying to confuse, rather than convince. > > What's intimidating about mentioning the Clausius-Clapeyron equation? > It's no different to referring to Boyle's Law or Stefan-Boltzmann (I > don't recall you calling Deatherage pretentious for his continued > reference to the latter, but then he's on your side) > > >> > OK I assumed that you either had a HS knowledge of chemistry or that >> > you could use Google, apparently I was wrong on both counts. >> > Apparently you have a chip on your shoulder about your science >> > education, what was I supposed to do give the thermodynamic >> > derivation of the C-C equation on here without the ability to >> > adequately present differential equations, which laws is it allowed >> > to refer to without being pretentious, Boyle's Law, Stefan-Boltzmann >> > or is it just any one you haven't heard of? >> >> You assume way too much. You don't know anything about my education, >> and you don't need to. I was referring to your apparent assumptions of >> the educational level in this group. > > So you thing it's wrong to assume HS level chemistry as background for > this subject? > >> This is a discussion group, and trying to impress by throwing around >> unnecessary technical jargon is counterproductive. If you can't >> explain in terms most readers can understand, you don't really know the >> subject. > > Who's trying to impress, to say that vapor pressure is related to > temperature through the Clausius-Clapeyron equation is about the minimal > description which any one not familiar with the term can easily find on > google. I suppose I should have just posted this: > > ln(P2/P1) = (DeltaHv/R)(1/T1-1/T2) > where > T1 and P1 are a corresponding temperature (K) and pressure T2 and P2 are > the corresponding temperature and pressure at another point DeltaHv is > the enthalpy of vaporization R is the gas constant > > Do you like that better? If that's the best you can do. I'd probably just link to an RH-T graph. >> > You, on the other hand are trying to prosletyse on here and >> > deliberately exaggerate by 100-fold, in other words lie, yet you have >> > mounted a campaign against another poster here for what you have >> > termed lying! >> >> I made a careless decimal point error and immediately acknowledged it. >> What's your problem? Do you really not see the difference? > > > No you didn't immediately acknowledge it you waited 14 hrs until it was > pointed out to and you flippantly implied it was no big deal. Hard to acknowledge anything until I found out about it. >> >> > if I'd just said +7%/K you'd have demanded to know where the >> >> > number came from! >> >> >> You're being a bit presumptuous there. Retake that mindreading >> >> class. >> >> > No just your past history on here Bill. >> >> I'll leave that one for readers to decide. >> >> >> > If you want to be taken seriously on sci.environment be prepared >> >> > to talk science >> >> >> With a little more experience you may be able to "talk science" >> >> effectively. From what I've seen, you are far too impressed with >> >> your education to use it wisely. Knowledge is not wisdom. To >> >> teach, you have to communicate, and you apparently don't yet know >> >> how. >> >> > From 30+ years experience of teaching I've had no problems, however >> > the students want to learn, are prepared and have a grounding in the >> > necessary prerequisites, and don't bring an attitude and agenda to >> > the class. >> >> I'm surprised. You seem much less experienced than that. I've no >> doubt you were aware of no problems, but I'm not so sure about your >> students, considering your attitude. > > Well they were certainly happy enough judging by their course > assessments which were extremely good! Of course as I said before the > students do their homework and don't come into the classroom with their > preconceived ideas and political agendas. > >> > And yet my reply has told you exactly what the link between vapor >> > pressure and temperature is and an estimate of its magnitude for >> > water, >> >> And apparently the thought never went through your mind that I might >> already know that. >> >> >I can only conclude that you're pissed off because you really didn't >> >want to know that because it doesn't fit with your agenda! >> >> Your logic is as faulty as your assumptions. >> >> >> To communicate, you have to learn what the students know, then >> >> expand on it to get your point across. Trying to impress them by >> >> talking over their heads comes across as just being a jerk, no >> >> matter how well intentioned. > > Something I have no problem with. We agree on that. >> > I wasn't aware that we have a professor/student relationship on here, >> > it's supposed to be a discussion, but since you've just said that you >> > don't have a HS level knowledge and that I'm supposed to educate you, >> > that's tough to do when the student (you) doesn't want to know the >> > answers and disputes everything he's been told. >> >> When you get rattled, you have a tendency to misquote as above. That's >> a dead giveaway. I haven't (and don't) say anything about my >> educational level, and particularly nothing about needing you to >> "educate" me. > > Ah, but you think I should educate the rest of the group apparently? If you were able to. But I don't think you are. > >> >> otherwise take off to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh where you'll >> >> >> > not hear from me again (except by cross postings). >> >> >> That's what I'm talking about (jerk-wise). >> >> > You're one who's making false statements and then getting in a huff >> > when called to account. >> >> Are you talking about me dropping a couple of decimal points? So sue >> me. > > See there you go again, you exaggerated by a factor of 100's and I don't > believe it was accidental, which is borne out by this remark. It's OK > for you to lie in pursuit of your agenda but you go after anyone you > think does that, so let's see your apology to the group for > misrepresentation? Sure. I'm sorry if my careless mistake inconvenienced anyone. Is that so hard? >> >> >> > Also it's far from obvious that increased water vapor will lead >> >> >> > to more cloud. >> >> >> >> Depends on who's looking. Try getting out more. Preferably in a >> >> >> sailplane. >> >> >> > Done that, also a Cessna, however while it seems intuitive that >> >> > more evaporation due to increased temperature would lead to more >> >> > cloud as far as I'm aware there's no evidence that it's true. >> >> >> And you're a pilot? You haven't seen cumulii popping when the >> >> surface gets hot? Pull the other one, it whistles. >> >> > Yes and as discussed below that doesn't mean that in the steady state >> > a warmer world will have a different cloud cover, it isn't that easy. >> >> News flash: The world is not now, nor has it ever been, in a steady >> state. > > Check out the difference between climate and weather. Climate is low passed weather. Relevance? > >> >> or as to any change in >> >> >> > type it makes a difference what sorts of cloud we're talking >> >> > about, status, cumulus, cirrus. >> >> >> Do you have some explanation of what happens to the water vapor if >> >> it doesn't condense? >> >> > Well it will condense at a different altitude also it might rain much >> > harder which could lead to shorter lived clouds. >> >> Here's where you apparently think I would demand a cite for that. But >> you'd be wrong. It's just a speculation and needs no cite. >> >> > Here's a couple of sites which discuss the difficulties: >> >> >http://web.mit.edu/cgcs/www/clouds.html >> >> >> <begin excerpt> >> >> Recent observational studies show that these effects almost balance, >> >> but that the cooling effect is somewhat more important. From the >> >> point of view of global change, however, it is crucial to note that >> >> this small difference is about five times larger than the radiative >> >> effect anticipated from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide >> >> (CO2), and that the individual components of the difference are >> >> orders of magnitude larger. In existing climate models about one >> >> third of the predicted warming due to increasing CO2 arises because >> >> of the predicted cloud changes. These predictions, however, are >> >> highly speculative because none of the models include interactive >> >> cloud physics. <end excerpt> >> >> >> Sounds OK to me. >> >> >> >http://www.cahmda.wur.nl/Trenberth_37.pdf >> >> >> Five pages to tell us he hasn't got a clue. >> >> >> > It's actually a very complex problem, you could just as >> >> > intuitively say, 'more rain and shorter cloud lifetime'. >> >> >> But I didn't. That's your intuition, not mine. >> >> > Indeed and both equally valid on that basis, the trouble is nobody >> > knows which is right or even if they're both wrong, the difference is >> > that I recognise that but you dogmatically state that you're right. >> > When not even the Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the >> > National Center for Atmospheric Research knows the answer but you do, >> > that's one smart student! >> >> For a teacher, you haven't learned much, have you? >> >> > So which is it, Bill are we to treat you as some one who doesn't have >> > basic HS knowledge and shouldn't be expected to know anything about >> > thermodynamics and must have everything explained to him step by step >> > or are we to treat you as some omniscient genius who knows the answer >> > to everything but can't explain it in a scientific way, something of >> > an idiot savant? >> >> I only expect to be treated with the same respect as you would anyone >> else on the NG, which is apparently the case. But attempted >> intimidation is not the key to success. Someday you may learn... > > > You have to have a very thin skin to consider mention of the Clausius- > Clapeyron equation an attempt at intimidation! I don't feel intimidated. Certainly not by you.
From: Phil Hays on 5 Sep 2007 10:44 Bill Ward wrote: > I think they're beginning to see the handwriting on the wall. It's > "agenda first, reality later", that drives their behavior. If AGW won't > further their agenda, they'll dump it for the next scare that comes > along. Like the loss of sea ice this summer, for instance. A third of the Arctic polar cap is melted. A bit of reality on the AGW issue. Don't you wonder what the climate is going to be like with an ice free Arctic? -- Phil Hays
From: Phil. on 5 Sep 2007 11:21 On Sep 5, 10:44 am, Phil Hays <inva...(a)dont.spam> wrote: > Bill Ward wrote: > > I think they're beginning to see the handwriting on the wall. It's > > "agenda first, reality later", that drives their behavior. If AGW won't > > further their agenda, they'll dump it for the next scare that comes > > along. > > Like the loss of sea ice this summer, for instance. A third of the Arctic > polar cap is melted. A bit of reality on the AGW issue. > > Don't you wonder what the climate is going to be like with an ice free > Arctic? > Interesting effects on the weather I would think, this August the ice extent is 1 million sq km smaller than the previous record (2005). http://www.nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/images/20070904_augtrend.jpg Of particular concern is the loss of multi-year ice which is being replaced by thin single year ice each winter which leads to progressively faster melting the next summer. The extra million sq km represents a huge amount of energy pumped into the arctic.
From: Lloyd on 5 Sep 2007 13:33 On Sep 4, 4:58 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 11:49:24 -0700, Phil. wrote: > > On Sep 4, 1:50 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 06:47:19 -0700, Phil. wrote: > >> > On Sep 3, 11:04 pm, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:55:41 -0700, kdthrge wrote: > >> >> > On Sep 3, 7:26 pm, Bill Carter <qhk6cx...(a)sneakemail.com> wrote: > >> >> ><snip> > > >> >> >> I don't pretend to completely understand the science, but I have > >> >> >> not seen you state this 'proof' which falsifies the theory of > >> >> >> these dishonest scientists. I've seen you make a lot of > >> >> >> statements, but no proof. > > >> >> > Well the proof is there. I have documented very specific points in > >> >> > which they have a fraudulent theory to support their false claims. > >> >> > Your inabilty to see this does not matter much. The documentation > >> >> > of these facts to be presented into court does matter. > > >> >> > The simple proof most recent in this discusion is the fact that at > >> >> > the same temperature with different pressures in a gas, the same > >> >> > energy is transferred through the gas. > > >> >> KD, I don't follow you there. Could you describe an experiment that > >> >> would show this effect? IOW, are you talking about radiation shining > >> >> into the cell, heat being applied to a wall, or what? Is the energy > >> >> input as radiative transfer through a transparent window or > >> >> conduction? Is the gas flowing? > > >> >> If you're talking about thermal conductivity of gases, it approaches > >> >> zero as the pressure drops. That's why a Dewar works. > > >> >> If you're talking about absorption of radiation, in a transparent > >> >> gas, the transmission should be independent of pressure since there > >> >> is no absorption at all. So I'm lost. Can you explain? > > >> >> > This proves that the energy is NOT being transfered by collisions > >> >> > of the molecules. > > >> >> If you are talking about transmitting radiation through a transparent > >> >> gas, I don't think many would argue with that. > > >> >> > If the energy is not being transferred by the energy of collisions, > >> >> > it must be being transfered by a radiation field within the gas. > > >> >> > This means that O2 and N2 absorb infrared energy of the continouse > >> >> > spectra of the thermal frequencies of less energy than 2um. > > >> >> I don't see how you come to that conclusion. If O2 and N2 did absorb > >> >> IR, the atmosphere would be opaque to those frequencies, and weather > >> >> satellite IR images show it's not. Would a "radiation field" require > >> >> any interaction with molecules to transfer energy? I can't see why. > > >> >> > This means that the fundamental principles of grenhouse theory are > >> >> > very directly proved to be false. > > >> >> > It is also proved very simply, that the quantity of energy > >> >> > transfered through the gas when the gas is at a particular > >> >> > temperature obeys the Boltzman Stefan equation. This fact is denied > >> >> > by basic grenhouse theory, although very simple experiment can > >> >> > prove this rate of energy transfer. > > >> >> What would that experiment be? > > >> >> >> > They continue to get away with this because of peoples tendency > >> >> >> > to trust scientists. All the while these fraudists are out to > >> >> >> > entirely disembowel these peoples way of life according to their > >> >> >> > hysterical and unbased belief, that normal lifestyles and > >> >> >> > emissions of CO2 is ruining the planet. > > >> >> I think they are way overstating the magnitude of the effect of > >> >> traces of CO2 compared to thousands of times more water vapor. > > >> > Which planet is that? 380ppmv times one thousand is 38% that's a very > >> > wet (and hot) place! > > >> You're right. I dropped a decimal point. Mea culpa. Or I guess I could > >> claim a "colloquialism". > > > Actually two and since when has 'thousands' been a 'colloquialism' for > > tens? Incidentally this is a science newsgroup. > > >> > More like 20X max to 1/3 in the troposphere, much less in the > >> > stratosphere. > > >> >> And they are > >> >> invoking dubious positive feedback properties of WV while ignoring > >> >> its obvious negative feedbacks from cloud formation. I agree it > >> >> looks totally bogus, biased, and unscientific. > > >> > The feedback of temperature on Water vapor is well known and described > >> > by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. > > >> Impressive way to talk about humidity. Consider the possibility that > >> you may not be the only person in the NG to have taken P.Chem. > > > Maybe but I imagine that you can use Google? Again it's a science > > newsgroup, you said that the link between water vapor pressure and > > temperature > > It makes your position look desperate when you resort to misquoting. I > said "dubious positive feedback properties of WV", not "the link between > water vapor pressure and temperature". > > "looks totally bogus, biased, and unscientific" whereas I > > > showed that there is a precise scientific relationship, then you complain > > that I'm being too scientific, > > No, I think you are attempting to intimidate by being pretentious, and not > being scientific enough. If, as you apparently assume, you are the only > educated person in the group, then you should use phrases that would be > more familiar to us. It makes you look like you are trying to confuse, > rather than convince. > > > if I'd just said +7%/K you'd have demanded to know where the number came > > from! > > You're being a bit presumptuous there. Retake that mindreading class. > > > If you want to be taken seriously on sci.environment be prepared > > to talk science > > With a little more experience you may be able to "talk science" > effectively. From what I've seen, you are far too impressed with your > education to use it wisely. Knowledge is not wisdom. To teach, you > have to communicate, and you apparently don't yet know how. > > To communicate, you have to learn what the students know, then expand on > it to get your point across. Trying to impress them by talking over their > heads comes across as just being a jerk, no matter how well intentioned. > > otherwise take off to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh where you'll > > > not hear from me again (except by cross postings). > > That's what I'm talking about (jerk-wise). > > > > >> > Also it's far from obvious that increased water vapor will lead to > >> > more cloud. > > >> Depends on who's looking. Try getting out more. Preferably in a > >> sailplane. > > > Done that, also a Cessna, however while it seems intuitive that more > > evaporation due to increased temperature would lead to more cloud as far > > as I'm aware there's no evidence that it's true. > > And you're a pilot? You haven't seen cumulii popping when the surface > gets hot? Pull the other one, it whistles. > > or as to any change in > > > type it makes a difference what sorts of cloud we're talking about, > > status, cumulus, cirrus. > > Do you have some explanation of what happens to the water vapor if it > doesn't condense? > > > Here's a couple of sites which discuss the difficulties: > >http://web.mit.edu/cgcs/www/clouds.html > > <begin excerpt> > Recent observational studies show that these effects almost balance, but > that the cooling effect is somewhat more important. From the point of view > of global change, however, it is crucial to note that this small > difference is about five times larger than the radiative effect > anticipated from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), and that > the individual components of the difference are orders of magnitude > larger. In existing climate models about one third of the predicted > warming due to increasing CO2 arises because of the predicted cloud > changes. These predictions, however, are highly speculative because none > of the models include interactive cloud physics. > <end excerpt> > > Sounds OK to me. > http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarmingQandA/ > >http://www.cahmda.wur.nl/Trenberth_37.pdf > > Five pages to tell us he hasn't got a clue. > > > It's actually a very complex problem, you could just as intuitively say, > > 'more rain and shorter cloud lifetime'. > > But I didn't. That's your intuition, not mine. > > <snip>
From: Whata Fool on 5 Sep 2007 13:50
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:44:48 GMT, Phil Hays <invalid(a)dont.spam> wrote: >Bill Ward wrote: >> I think they're beginning to see the handwriting on the wall. It's >> "agenda first, reality later", that drives their behavior. If AGW won't >> further their agenda, they'll dump it for the next scare that comes >> along. > >Like the loss of sea ice this summer, for instance. A third of the Arctic >polar cap is melted. A bit of reality on the AGW issue. A bit of delusion on the AGW issue, the Gulf Stream did not originate by way of AGW, or even natural GW, it has been there a long time, and feeds warm water to northward flows on both sides of Greenland. Do you really believe that if a third of the ice has melted as measured after months of solid sunshine or very long periods of daylight that it won't refreeze this winter, at least to some extent. Thinking that something that is happening will never stop is a psychiatric disorder, could all global warmers suffer from that? >Don't you wonder what the climate is going to be like with an ice free >Arctic? Don't you wonder why you imagine such things as an ice free Arctic? All the species that make use of the Arctic sea ice breath air, so even if you fantasy delusion were to happen, they would just go where there is ice near shore. One of the more critical issues is mammals like the Narwhal http://images.google.com/images?q=narwhal+image&hl=en&um=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=title need to hide from killer whales, but it is possible they would adapt some defense or move to a safe place. Perhaps we could prevent the water from flowing across the Arctic Ocean by building a dam across the Bering Strait, but that might leave England and northern Europe 15 or 20 degrees colder. But keep the AGW hoax going, if the funds were cur off, the economy in Europe might collapse. |