Joe,

Forgive me as I beat you to a bloody pulp with my bare knuckles.

Some folks resort to claiming that scientists hold themselves above everyone else by claiming that “peer reviewed publishing” is the Holy Grail of fact while “scientist” hold the key to peer reviewed publishing.

This is BS.

Peer reviewed publishing is only the first step towards credibility in the scientific world. Published papers are sometimes retracted. Peer reviewed papers are sometimes ignored. Peer reviewed papers are sometimes discredited, yet not retracted.

Is it possible to have something worthy to say without being published in a peer reviewed Journal? – By all means yes(in theory), but anyone with hopes of being taken seriously needs to use creditable techniques if they seriously want to claim bias in science world.

Carlin’s “paper” falls short on so many basic fronts that it is laughable.

Galileo is often cited as a worthy scientist who was denied access and credibility because of his less than mainstream beliefs. Indeed he was. He was also fighting the Catholic Church.

No matter how many times you read about “the Church of Gore” online, it is BS.

arch (an atheist)

This was taken from the space station June 12th and it actually cooled the planet. LOL

Did you do as I suggested and check out the references? Which was the purpose of my posting that. The references. I didn't clain that the paper itself was all that solid.

Did you bother to read his disclaimer at the start that he had to slap it together quickly so a lot of the proper method was ignored? He actually acknowelged that it isn't a good paper right at the start. He didn't try to pass it off as good research. Although I think it is much better than just about all of the "research papers" that the alarmists have put out.

So, you seem to be a typical alarmist who will ignore pr dismiss anything that might cast doubt on your beliefs. Not far removed from the fundies who only read the Bible, only listen to "christian" music, and only watch The 700 Club (is that still on?) because they don't want anything that may shake their faith.

Joe,

References? I don’t need no stinkin’ references.

More seriously, I could write a paper claiming “Jim Hanson Doesn’t Know Squat” (and probably post it on Anthony Watt’s site) and then list every scholarly paper ever published by Hansen in the references, without ever drawing from any of them. This is one of the differences between references and footnotes. (I could do the same for Al Gore but my list of scholarly papers would be invisible).

Of course I looked at the references. That is basically all I addressed in the previous post.

Take care gents. I’ll catch you in another life.

quote:

Originally posted by arch stanton:
Take care gents. I’ll catch you in another life.

Does this mean we don't have to read your bogus science links anymore ?

Sweet...

Well, Hanson's boss says he is full of sh*t.

James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic
Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’ & ‘Was Never Muzzled’
Link

More important to me is the actual science behind what CO2 really does in the atmosphere. It COOLS the planet. Here is why - and we learned this in basic Chemistry...

1) We know that a molecule of water vapor has many times the heat-trapping capability of a molecule of CO2.

2) We know that, for a given atmospheric pressure, there is a net sum of the vapor pressures of the gases in the atmosphere.

3) We know that if the vapor pressure of CO2 is increased, the other vapor pressures must respond by decreasing. Water easily precipitates out, so atmospheric water vapor is reduced and we get an expansion of the Sahara effect (see footnote).

4) We know that substituting water vapor with CO2 therefore REDUCES the atmospheric heat retention capability.

Al Gore and the other s**theads are lying. But most politicians are completely unaware of the physical process that I just described, so they too are easily snowed by the "conclusion" they are fed. Back in the '70s, man-made CO2 (miniscule in proportion) was causing a new Ice Age. No, wait, now it's causing irreversible Global Warming! We must take people's money, quickly, before it changes again! Money-grabbing policy founded on lies... those people should be tarred and feathered, not rewarded with OUR MONEY!!

Footnote: The Sahara Effect

In the Sahara desert, the temperature ranges from over 100 degrees in the daytime to freezing at night. The CO2 in the atmosphere cannot trap the day's torrid heat and there is no water to do so.

In the Amazon, the temperature may range from 96 degrees in the day to 91 degrees at night. The CO2 there also cannot trap the heat but there is plenty of water vapor. So, the Amazon maintains a more stable temperature, a greenhouse environment with lots of moisture, ideal for growth.

Life loves a greenhouse, not a desert or a glacier.

That’s cute Mr. V.

Did you think of that all by yourself?

Who gives a crap. Get a pool. Us, our kids and grandchildren will all be long gone before it matters. Why don't all the hippies jump off a bridge to help save the environment. Your B.O. is destroying the Troposphere.

It truly amazes me when someone comes along to misquote their high school physics and actually believes that they have come up with something that all the PHDs specializing in the area have missed over cumulative thousands of man-years.

Let me get out my red pen.

quote:

Originally posted by Speak2Truth:
More important to me is the actual science behind what CO2 really does in the atmosphere. It COOLS the planet. Here is why - and we learned this in basic Chemistry...

1) We know that a molecule of water vapor has many times the heat-trapping capability of a molecule of CO2.

2) We know that, for a given atmospheric pressure, there is a net sum of the vapor pressures of the gases in the atmosphere.

3) We know that if the vapor pressure of CO2 is increased, the other vapor pressures must respond by decreasing. Water easily precipitates out, so atmospheric water vapor is reduced and we get an expansion of the Sahara effect (see footnote).

4) We know that substituting water vapor with CO2 therefore REDUCES the atmospheric heat retention capability.

Al Gore and the other s**theads are lying. But most politicians are completely unaware of the physical process that I just described, so they too are easily snowed by the "conclusion" they are fed. Back in the '70s, man-made CO2 (miniscule in proportion) was causing a new Ice Age. No, wait, now it's causing irreversible Global Warming! We must take people's money, quickly, before it changes again! Money-grabbing policy founded on lies... those people should be tarred and feathered, not rewarded with OUR MONEY!!

Footnote: The Sahara Effect

In the Sahara desert, the temperature ranges from over 100 degrees in the daytime to freezing at night. The CO2 in the atmosphere cannot trap the day's torrid heat and there is no water to do so.

In the Amazon, the temperature may range from 96 degrees in the day to 91 degrees at night. The CO2 there also cannot trap the heat but there is plenty of water vapor. So, the Amazon maintains a more stable temperature, a greenhouse environment with lots of moisture, ideal for growth.

Effort: A+
See opening note

Grammar/ spelling: A
As always – impeccable.

Cojones: A+
See opening comment

Propaganda value: A-
Most folks don’t have enough experience with the physics involved to see the obvious fallacies in your “common sense” demonstration, and those with uncritical minds who “want to believe” will do so regardless of the swiss cheese science that underlies it. For these folks this might actually be a rather useful tool. The minus comes in because it is so riddled with technical errors that it does not really take a scientist (let alone a weatherman) to “know which way the wind blows.”


Application of scientific theory and comprehension of relative processes: F
Specifically-
#1The relevant science here is physics (not chemistry)
#2 You confuse vapor pressure with partial pressure.
#3 You conflate radiative heat transfer with conductive heat transfer.
#4 As the partial pressure of one gas increases it does not decrease the partial pressure of another gas (let alone the vapor pressures). Partial pressures are absolute values, not percentages.
#5 The (so called) “greenhouse effect” of CO2, H2O and other GHGs (their ability to absorb and reemit photons of specific infrared wavelengths) does have something to do with your desert/jungle comparison. HOWEVER, the properties of raising the specific heat capacity of the combined gasses, and the release/absorption of latent heat as water goes through phase changes are dominant forces in your comparison as stated (you did kinda get that right). This, combined with error #4 makes your “Sahara effect” analogy of overnight temperature variation to global climate change irrelevant and sophomoric.

Entertainment value: A+
I haven’t had as much fun typing a response in a long time.

Overall: D
Needs improvement (but would fare much better in a “creative writing” class)


This is an excellent demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

1. Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.
2. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
3. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.
4. If they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill.

You forgot the most important one, arch...

Incompetent individuals actually believe the crap that global warming activists spew all over them, and when blogging, tend to name themselves after a gravesite from The Good The Bad and The Ugly.

quote:

Originally posted by Axeman 11B:
You forgot the most important one, arch...

Incompetent individuals actually believe the crap that global warming activists spew all over them, and when blogging, tend to name themselves after a gravesite from The Good The Bad and The Ugly.

Misattribution of potential error. You’ll have to bring that one up with Drs Dunning and Kruger. I left nothing out.

OTOH if you wanted to accuse me of being “a pretentious SOB” – I wouldn’t have much defense against it.

quote:

Originally posted by riderhide:
Who gives a crap. Get a pool. Us, our kids and grandchildren will all be long gone before it matters. Why don't all the hippies jump off a bridge to help save the environment. Your B.O. is destroying the Troposphere.

"Riderhide"

As in:

”I been chippin' them rocks from dawn till doom,
while my rider hide my bottle in the other room.” ?

Just wondering.

My turn to break out the red pen...

quote:

#1The relevant science here is physics (not chemistry)

And yet we ALSO learn this in advanced chemistry, which deals with vapors.

quote:

#2 You confuse vapor pressure with partial pressure.

Not really. And, let's get this right - the Earth's atmosphere is a composition of partial pressures that are a result of the various vapor pressures at a given temperature. I'm just trying to simplify this so you might be able to grasp the main point. In a closed system, with a stable pressure, the process I described does apply. And, the Earth's atmosphere acts as a closed system.

quote:

#3 You conflate radiative heat transfer with conductive heat transfer.

No, I don't. Heat retention is also related to heat energy required to change state from a liquid to a gas, which is a key reason water vapor has tremendous heat energy retention capability. A CO2 molecule has little - and it is a mere trace gas in our atmosphere. That is why...

Link

quote:

#4 As the partial pressure of one gas increases it does not decrease the partial pressure of another gas (let alone the vapor pressures). Partial pressures are absolute values, not percentages.

You are incorrect, when we are speaking of a system in which the total pressure remains constant.

quote:

#5 The (so called) “greenhouse effect” of CO2, H2O and other GHGs (their ability to absorb and reemit photons of specific infrared wavelengths) does have something to do with your desert/jungle comparison. HOWEVER, the properties of raising the specific heat capacity of the combined gasses, and the release/absorption of latent heat as water goes through phase changes are dominant forces in your comparison as stated (you did kinda get that right).

I TOTALLY got that right. I have now posted a pretty picture so you can grasp the truth of what I'm telling you. I hope the pretty picture helps.

quote:

This, combined with error #4 makes your “Sahara effect” analogy of overnight temperature variation to global climate change irrelevant and sophomoric.

Actually, the Sahara Effect is completely relevant. The Greenhouse Effect refers to long-term atmospheric heat retention. The effect I described reveals that CO2 is a miniscule contributor. Water vapor rules. And I've explained why.

If you want to debunk this framework, the thing to do is show that as CO2 increases, it will not drive a resulting decrease in atmospheric water content. Can you? I'd be interested in seeing it.

If you can't argue the science... enjoy the pretty picture!

Wrong no points.

Vapor pressures deal with vapors/liquids that are in equilibrium. Our atmosphere is rarely at equilibrium as far as H20 is concerned (particularly in the desert), and never at CO2 equilibrium as long as we keep pumping fossil C to it. If we stopped pumping into CO2 into the atmosphere, the carbon in the atmosphere would reach equilibrium with the carbon in the oceans. This fact will prevent our atmosphere from returning to pre-industrial CO2 levels for thousands of years. None the less it is still not relevant to what we have been discussing.. Partial pressures are the relevant point of discussion. (you even imply that in your response to my point #2)

The pressure of the atmosphere does not remain constant. It is in constant flux. Besides the constituent of the air (recall that there are many besides CO2 and water vapor) that is the most susceptible to being replaced by CO2 is O2, not water vapor. Didn’t they teach you about oxidation reactions in your chemistry class? Or did you just conveniently forget about them?

The onus is on you to present a mechanism for the replacement of H2O by CO2, not me to prove otherwise. I have shown the fallacy in your assumptions.

Your whole hypothesis is bogus.


Let’s get that straight before we move on to your cartoon graph completely change topics as you so often try to.

Your cartoon graph:


You don’t even provide a link for folks to see for themselves how bogus your cartoon source is. What a cheap trick. Link [EDIT: Error on my part. The link is there I missed it ]

You cite a self published paper on a website filled with long debunked lies…

A very quick perusal picks up a glaring inaccuracy (I suspect I could find others if I spent more than 3 minutes looking at the paper):

Table 4.1. (found just above the chart you link too - leading up to the “statistically correct way to represent relative human contributions” LOL) lists the percentage of human contributions to CO2 level as being 0.117. Actually anthropogenic sources are responsible for raising CO2 levels from ~288ppmv to ~386ppmv. This makes humans responsible for ~25% of all the CO2 in the air right now.


OTOH This paper is 12 years old now and continues to be cited. (Funny your paper did not cite it. Instead they chose to cite a joke paper from the “ecoEnquirer”…). Although other more recent studies have come up with slightly different numbers, they have been similar. You will see that the authors find CO2 to be responsible for 26% of the gross greenhouse warming of the planet. Humans are currently responsible for about 25% of that. Because of the overlap in the IR absorption bands of H2O and CO2 an increase of ~ 6% (26% X 25%) does not necessarily lead to an actual 6% increase in the greenhouse gas effect (as implied by the bogus math leading to your cartoon graph). The climate’s response to additional atmospheric CO2 is actually an inverse exponent. This is why CO2 radiative forcing numbers are usually given per “doubling” of CO2 content.

Your cartoon graph is totally bogus just like your arguments.

You loose even more credibility.