Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable

[Dr Kynes]

This paper is one that caught my eye when it came out.
If you want I have a rebuttal and response, too. But I don't think the rebuttal was well made (from what I remember when I read it) perhaps because it was done by a chemist who did not address the physics--which is the main argument of the paper--and the response was bordering on petulant (or RIU-worthy).

that shit is heavy.

imma have to digest that shit.

also gerlich is a noted well published Geophysicist

i was readin some of his other works earlier, relating to his estimations of CO2 gassing from geological sources and the processes which in turn sequester that CO2 (and no he doesnt attribute these gasses to AGW in those studies either, though his reports are cited by climate hysterics as if they do)

 

[Dr Kynes]

The claim is untrue.

unsourced, but plausible

ya cant prove a negative, and i havent seen anything that explicitly states that it's not possible

if, for example, geological CO2 had 15 or 20% more of one isotope than "Fossil Fuel" CO2 or animal respiration CO2 then that could be a useful tool in isolating different sources without the speculation.

but again, i am just speculating

 

[Dr Kynes]

ah, this claim again.

you have made this claim before, mind you.



and you refuse to provide any citation whatsoever.

hey kynes, this stooge is on your side, you want to track this one down?

it is well established that water vapour holds MUCH more heat and is a much more powerful greenhouse driver than CO2

there is also FAR more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2, so his claim is plausible, and possibly very low in it's estimation of the differing effects.

Therefore, on average, only about 2 to 3% of the molecules in the air are water vapor molecules. The amount of water vapor in the air is small in extremely arid areas and in location where the temperatures are very low (i.e. polar regions, very cold weather). The volume of water vapor is about 4% in very warm and humid tropical air.
~http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/40/

Water vapour concentration: 0% to 4.0 % confirming the above assertion
~http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html

whils the CO2 concentration is firmly established by MANY sources to be 0.35%

this report asserts that water vapour is responsible for 60-75% of the greenhouse effect:

"The contribution of each gas absorber to the total atmospheric absorption is given in Table 4. For cloudy conditions, water vapor accounts for nearly half of the total atmospheric absorption, while the second most important absorber is ozone; the contribution by carbon dioxide is small."
~http://web.archive.org/web/20060330013311/http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf

so yes, his assertion is pretty solid.

 

[UncleBuck]

so yes, his assertion is pretty solid.

so you're saying that water vapor has a "hundredfold effect over CO2 on greenhouse effect" then?



i'm sure that there are some "well respected scientists" who will agree with you on that, right?

 

[NLXSK1]

tell us more about how forest fires cause global warming.

i would really say that you should stick to mastering cartography before you move on to climatology, by the way.

if you can't read a simple scientific poll or a map of iran, then maybe you should sit out the climate science debate.

I said that forest fires can contribute to global cooling, not warming. You seem confused that particulate matter in the atmosphere could reflect the energy of the sun.

Not surprisingly you are wrong about another statement I have made.

 

[Dr Kynes]

so you're saying that water vapor has a "hundredfold effect over CO2 on greenhouse effect" then?



i'm sure that there are some "well respected scientists" who will agree with you on that, right?

a greenhouse gas that has a 4-5X more powerful absorptive factor and appears in quantities in the atmosphere at a 3-4% vs 0.35%

yes. thats reasonable.

the citations noted above bear this out, and one specifically states that 60-75% of the greenhouse effect (depending on cloud cover and humidity) is due to water vapour, while CO2's influence is "Small"

again, red's assertion is reasonable.

i could locate no particular report or study that made the exact claim he asserted, but theres very little money in researching "How CLOUDS are gonna fuck us over and there aint shit we can do about it"

edit: and yes, i cited SEVERAL sources that bear this hypothesis out.
you have cited none which dispute it.

advantage: Red.

 

[NLXSK1]

a greenhouse gas that has a 4-5X more powerful absorptive factor and appears in quantities in the atmosphere at a 3-4% vs 0.35%

yes. thats reasonable.

the citations noted above bear this out, and one specifically states that 60-75% of the greenhouse effect (depending on cloud cover and humidity) is due to water vapour, while CO2's influence is "Small"

again, red's assertion is reasonable.

i could locate no particular report or study that made the exact claim he asserted, but theres very little money in researching "How CLOUDS are gonna fuck us over and there aint shit we can do about it"

edit: and yes, i cited SEVERAL sources that bear this hypothesis out.
you have cited none which dispute it.

advantage: Red.

Not until Climate Disruption - the new name for all this bullshit - is totally debunked. Then they might go after clouds.... Or maybe they will dig up the scare about the ice age from the 70's. At least they would be right about that one although nobody is clear on the time frame.

 

[UncleBuck]

a greenhouse gas that has a 4-5X more powerful absorptive factor and appears in quantities in the atmosphere at a 3-4% vs 0.35%

yes. thats reasonable.

the citations noted above bear this out, and one specifically states that 60-75% of the greenhouse effect (depending on cloud cover and humidity) is due to water vapour, while CO2's influence is "Small"

again, red's assertion is reasonable.

i could locate no particular report or study that made the exact claim he asserted, but theres very little money in researching "How CLOUDS are gonna fuck us over and there aint shit we can do about it"

edit: and yes, i cited SEVERAL sources that bear this hypothesis out.
you have cited none which dispute it.

advantage: Red.

so you claim that you can stick "and global warming" to the end of anything and it gets funded, but something that supposedly has a "hundredfold effect over CO2 on greenhouse effect" gets magically ignored?

that's hard to believe.

look harder, i'm gonna need some citation of this "hundredfold effect" that's better than whining from you and red.

 

[UncleBuck]

I said that forest fires can contribute to global cooling, not warming. You seem confused that particulate matter in the atmosphere could reflect the energy of the sun.

can you provide any citation for this claim?

Not surprisingly you are wrong about another statement I have made.

was i now?

Draw me a picture of how Iran gets to the sea without syria...

 

[Dr Kynes]

so you claim that you can stick "and global warming" to the end of anything and it gets funded, but something that supposedly has a "hundredfold effect over CO2 on greenhouse effect" gets magically ignored?

that's hard to believe.

look harder, i'm gonna need some citation of this "hundredfold effect" that's better than whining from you and red.

so you now contend you examined all 3 of the sources i cited, in the SIX MINUTES between my posting them, and your response, and considered that material carefully enough to warrant a SECOND response, even more emphatic than the first?

Protip: one is light reading for dunces, the second two are NOT.

you really are impressive.

 

[Dr Kynes]

can you provide any citation for this claim?



was i now?

i can, but is there any point?

Beware, before you make your smug response, i used to be a wildland firefighter
i know far more about that shit than you might suspect.

 

[UncleBuck]

so you now contend you examined all 3 of the sources i cited, in the SIX MINUTES between my posting them, and your response, and considered that material carefully enough to warrant a SECOND response, even more emphatic than the first?

Protip: one is light reading for dunces, the second two are NOT.

you really are impressive.

you already said you couldn't find any report backing up his claim though, and then made up some explanation as to why that completely contradicts what you have said earlier about how easy it is to get AGW funding, especially considering your latest assertion that water vapor has "a hundredfold effect" over CO2.

what's impressive is how massively contradictory your explanations become.

 

[UncleBuck]

i can, but is there any point?

i love to learn.

show me how forest fires cause global cooling.

 

[NLXSK1]

can you provide any citation for this claim?



was i now?

You cant even figure out what Kynes has stated given the information from a graph that you LOVE so much in post 1206 regarding water vapor and the average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. I dont think you are that dumb, I think you are just trolling as hard as possible.

Which means you can have fuck all citations to a claim you will ignore anyway...

 

[NoDrama]

You cant even figure out what Kynes has stated given the information from a graph that you LOVE so much in post 1206 regarding water vapor and the average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. I dont think you are that dumb, I think you are just trolling as hard as possible.

Which means you can have fuck all citations to a claim you will ignore anyway...

What do you expect? buck couldn't even graduate from a school in which a "D" is considered a good grade. ASU Alumni are particularly proud of their ability to drink and party, but are sore that they cannot figure that if you increase 1 by 100% you will have 2 and not 1.

 

[UncleBuck]

You cant even figure out what Kynes has stated given the information from a graph that you LOVE so much in post 1206 regarding water vapor and the average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. I dont think you are that dumb, I think you are just trolling as hard as possible.

Which means you can have fuck all citations to a claim you will ignore anyway...

lol, rage quit.

 

[Dr Kynes]

you already said you couldn't find any report backing up his claim though, and then made up some explanation as to why that completely contradicts what you have said earlier about how easy it is to get AGW funding, especially considering your latest assertion that water vapor has "a hundredfold effect" over CO2.

what's impressive is how massively contradictory your explanations become.

By The Numbers:
1 : i could find no specific report making that SPECIFIC claim but i aint a climatologist and i dont have access to the journals any more
not finding a thing in a quick google searchis not proof of it's impossibility

i have never seen a tiger eat bacon, but that does not mean tigers keep kosher.

2 : i found ample evidence that water vapour concentration in the atmosphere is roughly 10X the concentration of CO2 (3-4% rounded to 3.5 for easy math, vs 0.35%) so if. as red claims water vapour is 20X more absorptive, then his estimate is HALF the actual number

3 : i merely guesstimated the IR absorptive power of water vapour being 4-5X CO2's i pulled that number out of my ass, for no particular reason, and you didnt even run the math or check my numbers

4 : you didnt even check my sources. those links could lead to scholarly studies of the socio-economic impact of Pokemon on the consumer habits of juveniles between 8 and 14. (they do not)

5 : science doesnt work that way. if you think red is wrong, fuind a VALID RELIABLE (non-wikipedia) source or run the math and prove him wrong

6 : i mistyped. CO2's concentration is actually 0.035% meaning it is 1/10th the concentrations i stated and you didnt even notice with your superpowers, so Red's assertion is VERY PLAUSIBLE since water exists in the atmosphere at ONE HUNDRED TIMES CO2's concentration! so even if water is merely EQUAL to CO2's absorptive power, then yes, that would be 100x, exactly. ~ http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo
yep. 100x more water in the air than CO2.

7 : if you wish to argue that "global warming" doesnt draw research grants like shit draws flies, youre gonna have a long uphill battle proving that.

advantage: Red, service to Red, for Match Point.

 

[Red1966]

unsourced, but plausible

ya cant prove a negative, and i havent seen anything that explicitly states that it's not possible

if, for example, geological CO2 had 15 or 20% more of one isotope than "Fossil Fuel" CO2 or animal respiration CO2 then that could be a useful tool in isolating different sources without the speculation.

but again, i am just speculating

Blathering about something as if it were a fact then completely failing to respond to a request for detail indicates an intent to deceive. Liars lie.

 

[UncleBuck]

By The Numbers:
1 : i could find no specific report making that SPECIFIC claim but i aint a climatologist and i dont have access to the journals any more

but i'm certain that red does.

i merely guesstimated

good job on a sciency "guesstimation".

you didnt even check my sources.

why would i? you said you couldn't find anything to back red's claim.

science doesnt work that way. if you think red is wrong, fuind a VALID RELIABLE (non-wikipedia) source or run the math and prove him wrong

nope.

burden of proof is on the person making the claim. that would be red, or you, since you decided to carry that idiot's water.

if you wish to argue that "global warming" doesnt draw research grants like shit draws flies, youre gonna have a long uphill battle proving that.

you're the one who made that claim, then you argued against that claim when you could find nothing to back up red's assertion about water vapor having a "hundredfold effect" over CO2.

seems to me if AGW draws grant money so easily, such a powerful force would get tons of funding and you'd have no problem finding something to back you up.


idiot.

still waiting for citation of the claim, not just back of the eggo box math by you.

 

[Dr Kynes]

i love to learn.

show me how forest fires cause global cooling.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/page4.php
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/aerosol.htm
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~jyorks/graphics/Yorks_RadiativeEffects.pdf
http://www.ecocem.ie/environmental,albedo.htm
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/albedo.html
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/albedo.html

while smoke is less effective at reflecting solar radiation back into space than snow and ice, it is still potent
it's the same effect (on a smaller scale) that triggered the extinction event at the end of the age of the dinosaurs

smoke from live wood is very thick, and can linger in the atmosphere for extended periods of time

after a fire is out, the smoke pall keeps that area noticably cooler often for weeks if there is no wind or rain to disperse it.

scienced.