My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Flying Binghi]

This is because water vapour itself is a greenhouse gas

Please give them a prize

[Eclipse Now]

OK, so you'll admit that is a greenhouse gas? FB, please tell us why? How do we know it is? I personally think it is a conspiracy! The dreaded glasshouse people want to start a campaign that all agriculture is doing is spraying far too much water vapour into the air, and move all food-growing indoors! It's a conspiracy I tell you! We have to audit this study or I simply won't believe it!!!

[Flying Binghi]

OK, so you'll admit that is a greenhouse gas? FB, please tell us why? How do we know it is? I personally think it is a conspiracy! The dreaded glasshouse people want to start a campaign that all agriculture is doing is spraying far too much water vapour into the air, and move all food-growing indoors! It's a conspiracy I tell you! We have to audit this study or I simply won't believe it!!!

I'll let a mister Byson speak (by proxy through me )

First a little background -

Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.

Some sundry extracts from an interview -

“Climate’s always been changing and it’s been changing rapidly at various times, and so something was making it change in the past,” he told us in an interview this past winter. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?”

“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

We ask Bryson what could be making the key difference:

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

This begs questions about the widely publicized mathematical models researchers run through supercomputers to generate climate scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide and accounts poorly for the effects of clouds—water vapor. Asked to evaluate the models’ long-range predictive ability, he answers with another question: “Do you believe a five-day forecast?”
WECN May 2007

[Eclipse Now]

Nice bunch of waffle, but the question was, how do we know what water vapour does? See, if you don't care about the thousands of climatologists that verify how we know what we know about Co2, then I don't care about your precious man with a degree, even if you put his qualifications in bold! Because you've got to follow the money trail and AUDIT this guy all the way back to the bank! (Exxon Mobile funded, of course). Or maybe not, I shouldn't speak ill of the dead. Maybe he was just too old and stuck in his views... a quick look at his wiki says the last time he was published by peer reviewed journals appears to be nearly 30 years ago.

Quack quack.

Now, any chance you'll be getting to those 4 questions any time soon? How about debunking the science of spectroscopy for us? You know, the science of light and refraction and all that jazz, the very thing that enables us to have, I don't know, little things like the internet!

And try quoting something peer reviewed from, say, the same century as the one we're in now? There's a good lad.

[Flying Binghi]

Nice bunch of waffle, but the question was, how do we know what water vapour does? See, if you don't care about the thousands of climatologists that verify how we know what we know about Co2, then I don't care about your precious man with a degree, even if you put his qualifications in bold! Because you've got to follow the money trail and AUDIT this guy all the way back to the bank! (Exxon Mobile funded, of course). Or maybe not, I shouldn't speak ill of the dead. Maybe he was just too old and stuck in his views... a quick look at his wiki says the last time he was published by peer reviewed journals appears to be nearly 30 years ago.

Quack quack.

Now, any chance you'll be getting to those 4 questions any time soon? How about debunking the science of spectroscopy for us? You know, the science of light and refraction and all that jazz, the very thing that enables us to have, I don't know, little things like the internet!

And try quoting something peer reviewed from, say, the same century as the one we're in now? There's a good lad.

I dont know what to say to that Eclipse Now, i'll leave you with it for a while...


.................

[Essay]

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi

Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

I can only take a moment at lunchtime today, but even though Bryson didn't asnwer
the question, his comment implies that the question doesn't matter....
---

btw... [Thanks for the background on Bryson, EclipseNow.]

I'll ignore the silly metaphor that Bryson's answer to the second question (uh, statement)-
degenerates into, and just add a bit onto the answer of the first question.
I wish i could express how misleading such a simple statement (his answer) is,
when it's presented so far out of context, but let me just ask rhetorically:

Where do you think the heat goes--after it's been absorbed in that "first 30 feet," eh?
===

Binghi,
You need to understand the whole casade of energy--scrambling to escape the planet--
and not just look at a snapshot of one slice of the complex mechanism,
if you personally want to understand how CO2 actually affects the overall heat balance.

Do you know the temperature of the "heat" that CO2 absorbs?
Do you know how it absorbs, or what happens to the energy after it's absorbed?"
I think my replys to EngineerDude over the past few months-
(his golfball experiment) addressed these complexities.
Or I could refer you to at least one thread (on another forum) which details all this stuff--over about 5 pages....
===

I also wish i could express how unusual it is for anyone to [purely by chance] have spent a
lifetime learning about this stuff and these complexities--and how we take it so much for granted.
Thanks for reminding me how lucky i am, not to have to try and learn all the background science at once.

~

[Eclipse Now]

FB once again proves his character by quoting various out-of-date sceptical "resources" as flame-bait but refuses to engage the ensuing conversation.

FB: quotes nasty stinking pile of manure
List: replies with verifiable, repeatable, REAL science, showing how irrelevant said pile of manure really is
FB: insults replies without disproving them, and implies all climatologists everywhere need "auditing" while his own sources (funded by Exxon Mobile) don't!

FB you have repeatedly quoted non-scientific sources in an attempt to get a rise out of this list, and then just SNEER at the good science posted in reply. This is not a conversation. Ignoring the 4 questions is not a conversation. Posting rubbish and then just sidestepping the critiques of that rubbish not a conversation. You need to start engaging the list or else risk labelling yourself.

(disambiguation).

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]

Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they — and the troll — understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group.

Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized to trolling — where the rate of deception is high — many honestly naïve questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be quite off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online reputation." (Donath, 1999, p. 45)[10]

[Flying Binghi]

FB once again proves his character by quoting various out-of-date sceptical "resources" as flame-bait but refuses to engage the ensuing conversation.

FB: quotes nasty stinking pile of manure
List: replies with verifiable, repeatable, REAL science, showing how irrelevant said pile of manure really is
FB: insults replies without disproving them, and implies all climatologists everywhere need "auditing" while his own sources (funded by Exxon Mobile) don't!

FB you have repeatedly quoted non-scientific sources in an attempt to get a rise out of this list, and then just SNEER at the good science posted in reply. This is not a conversation. Ignoring the 4 questions is not a conversation. Posting rubbish and then just sidestepping the critiques of that rubbish not a conversation. You need to start engaging the list or else risk labelling yourself.


Quote:
(disambiguation).

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]

Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Quote:
Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they — and the troll — understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group.

Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized to trolling — where the rate of deception is high — many honestly naïve questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be quite off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online reputation." (Donath, 1999, p. 45)[10]

I dont want to loose that one Seems almost like your first post here Eclipse Now

Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online reputation

I've had worse, on another forum i was involved in a little discusion about terrorism threats, amongst other things, and got possible legal and death threats. One good thing about it all, is an intelligence service or two is probably monitoring my computer (and those hacking it... )

[freeztar]

Let's keep the discussion on topic please.

[Essay]

for instance:
Flying Binghi,

Answering the question about what happens to that heat after it is absorbed within "the first 30 feet" would demonstrate a better understanding of the heat balance.
[... in reference your Bryson citation]

Any thoughts along those lines?

~