UH OH Spaghetti Oh! Hansen says the temps have been flat!

[ReallyMeow]

Quite right, water vapor a positive driver, if it gets hotter, there will be more of it and it more effectively traps heat, this exacerbates the heat trapping produced by that little trace of co2. Well, as if 30 billion tons is trivial.

 

[SSDD]

Quite right, water vapor a positive driver, if it gets hotter, there will be more of it and it more effectively traps heat, this exacerbates the heat trapping produced by that little trace of co2. Well, as if 30 billion tons is trivial.

No, water vapor is an overall negative driver. Water has the unique ability to absorb and hold heat without getting warmer. For example, a pot of water on your stove boiling away will never get above 212 degrees even though the heat pouring into it from the eye is far above 212. Turn the eye off and it will take a very long time for that water to release the heat it has absorbed.


You guys just don't think through the pap you are fed and as a result, you end up believing idiotic claims of people like the guy with the CO2 video.

Use your brain for just a second here...Picture the globe and a line of lattitude on that globe. Start at the coast and work your way towards the desert along that line. During the day, the coast will be much cooler than the desert because of the high water vapor content in the atmosphere....the desert will be a lot warmer because of a decided lack of water vapor.

Think about places that have near constant drought...the drought is due to heat and the heat is due to a lack of water vapor. There are no droughts where the atmospheric water vapor levels are normally high. If your logic held, then as you travel along that line of longitude from the coast to the desert, as the atmospheric water vapor content decreased, the air would lose that positve forcing you claim and the desert would be cold due to a lack of water vapor in the air. That is not the case.

Feel free to refer to your history books but you won't find any instance, anywhere of a heat wave or drought being brought on by to much humidity.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, when it radiates from the ground some of it is absorbed by the air instead of flying off into space, so when we add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere more of this heat is being absorbed instead of flying off into space. You've failed to contradict me: co2 traps heat.

CO2 absorbs and raidates. It does not retain any of the energy it absorbed. Its emission spectra tell us this for a fact.

 

[SSDD]

No dummy, the air is warm because THE AIR IS WARM. FFS. Its not radiating to you from the ground across a vacuum.{/quote]

Ever hear of convection and conduction? That is the means by which over 90% of the energy the earth absorbs moves from the surface to the higher atmosphere. Radiation acounts for a minimum of heat transfer in the lower atmosphere. The breeze is warm because energy is convecting and conducting upwards from the surface.

The band is the band, just because you're only looking at the band, or even a teensy sliver of the band doesnt change the fact that the experiment successfully displayed that heat is being blocked by co2 at that band- you're going to tell me its actually absorbing MORE? SUPER! That just makes me more right.

The experiment was intended to decieve and trick. In your case, it worked admirably.

 

[mamooth]

Use your brain for just a second here...

A bit of advice, you're simply not bright enough to pull off the condescending act.

Start at the coast and work your way towards the desert along that line. During the day, the coast will be much cooler than the desert because of the high water vapor content in the atmosphere....the desert will be a lot warmer because of a decided lack of water vapor.

And when night falls, the desert turns frigid quickly. Because ... wait for it ... there's no water vapor serving as a greenhouse gas blanket.

Now, you told us a lack of water vapor means higher temps, but at night, regions lacking water vapor have low temps. Your theory has a few problems. You might want to work on that.

It's not water vapor in the atmosphere ever keeping temps down. What does that is the water in the soil and plants, absorbing heat as it vaporizes. You got that wrong too. Deserts are hotter because of a lack of soil moisture, not a lack of humidity. The coastal areas are cooler because the adjacent ocean is cooler, not because of humidity from the ocean.

 

[SSDD]

A bit of advice, you're simply not bright enough to pull off the condescending act.

Says the one person on the board who is less able to actually discuss the topic less than rolling thunder.

And when night falls, the desert turns frigid quickly. Because ... wait for it ... there's no water vapor serving as a greenhouse gas blanket.

Water vapor does not serve as a blanket. A blanket works because it inhibits covection and conduction. Water vapor slows the cooling process because it actually has the capacity to absorb and retain heat radiating from the surface, unlike CO2 which radiates and emits. Both the coastal region and the desert have the same amount of CO2 in the air but the CO2 makes no difference whatsoever, it is the water vapor.

What you warmists don't seem to grasp is that the atmosphere, water vapor in particular keeps us from burining to a cinder during the day and slows the cooling at night. Exactly the opposite of the claims the AGW hypothesis makes.

Now, you told us a lack of water vapor means higher temps, but at night, regions lacking water vapor have low temps. Your theory has a few problems. You might want to work on that.

Go back and read what I said. Funny that you would suggest that anyone isn't "bright enough" for anything.

It's not water vapor in the atmosphere ever keeping temps down.

Of course it is. That is why deserts burn during the day while coastal regions don't. Humidity the the factor that explains the difference between the daytime temperatures.

What does that is the water in the soil and plants, absorbing heat as it vaporizes. You got that wrong too. Deserts are hotter because of a lack of soil moisture, not a lack of humidity.

Typical...confusing cause with effect. The soil in deserts isn't dry because of to much moisture in the air, the soil in deserts is dry because there isn't enough.

 

[Koios]

My favorite meteorologist has a degree in geology and chemistry plus he was a Rhodes Scolar quarter finalist. He doesn't have a meteorology degree however. He did serve as a consulting meteorologist to the Nevada Dept. of Transportation so they didn't seem to think that was a detriment.

And he's on your local TV news' weather segment?

Yes, he's the chief meteorologist for the station.

What station?

 

[Koios]

And he's on your local TV news' weather segment?

Yes, he's the chief meteorologist for the station.

What station?

In Seattle, probably the best known / most loved was Harry Woppler, whose son Andy is now on KIRO TV doing the weather.

Here's Harry's background from his obit:

"Born on Dec. 21, 1936, in Park Ridge, Ill., Mr. Wappler earned an undergraduate degree in speech in 1958 at Northwestern University, followed in 1960 by a graduate degree in theology from Yale Divinity School.

Mr. Wappler became an ordained Episcopal minister and served in parishes in Jacksonville, Fla., and Wilmette, Ill., said his son. Then he switched careers and worked in public relations for Commonwealth Edison in Chicago." -- Obituaries | Longtime weatherman Harry Wappler dies at 73 | Seattle Times Newspaper

 

[polarbear]

Yes, when it radiates from the ground some of it is absorbed by the air instead of flying off into space, so when we add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere more of this heat is being absorbed instead of flying off into space. You've failed to contradict me: co2 traps heat.

Why would I need to compare it to water vapor? Oh dur hur hur, an elephant is bigger than a lion, qed lions dont exist? I keep thinking Im going to get to the bottom of this pit of stupid, but it just keeps going deeper.

You fail to understand that CO2 does not "trap heat"..!!!
It absorbs Infrared light that has a wavelength of 15 [FONT=Arial, Geneva]µm and when the specific molecular bond oscillator is maxed out it immediately re-emits it in all directions, in a 360 deg steradian angle.

It is You who is in a "pit of stupid" as You put it..because You also completely fail to understand what Lambert-Beer`s law means.

I`ll explain it to You once more, but I`m sure Your little brain won`t be able to absorb it.

If 50 % of the incident light does not reach the detector at the path exit all that has happened is that the other 50 % has gone off at a steradian angle other than the steradian view of the detector .
"oh dur hur hur..." another typical facebook culture dummy response...and has not even the vaguest idea what the difference between energy and temperature is.
Before You get heat from any light source You have to convert the energy transmitted by the light source to heat...and re-directing light does not convert a photon to heat...as in raising the temperature of a mass.
Else Your sun glasses would melt,...they "absorb" a lot more energy than CO2 could at a 100% concentration.
Your skin gets hot because it does not re-emit the IR light at the same wavelength it absorbed . The heat energy that warmed Your skin is sourced from the difference between (h*c/ λ1) - [FONT=Arial, Geneva](h*c/ λ2)[/FONT][/FONT]...where [FONT=Arial, Geneva][FONT=Arial, Geneva]λ2 is what`s "flying off into space" as You put it.
"Flying" photons...You sure do have a strange view of photons...Are there photons that don`t fly and fall back down in Your phantasy world too ?
[/FONT][/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Geneva] What the **** does the huge absorption region of water vapor compared to CO2 have to do with Your "elephants and lions...therefore lions don`t exist"....ridiculous pseudo-logic ???
No wonder You cant` get out of "this pit of stupid" if the only thing that comes to your little mind is "elephants and lions" when someone points out the absorption bandwidth of water vapor which spans almost the entire IR band.
All right then, I`ll try and explain it on Your level, down there in this [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva]"bottom of this pit of stupid"
The much bigger elephant can shade the sunlight out that would reach the lion, and there is dick all left for the lion to get a sun-burn, but the much smaller lion can`t shade the elephant.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]

Quite right, water vapor a positive driver, if it gets hotter, there will be more of it and it more effectively traps heat, this exacerbates the heat trapping produced by that little trace of co2. Well, as if 30 billion tons is trivial.

So why don`t You try it out...place a thermometer on a sunny day with 50 % overcast directly into the sun light and observe if the temperature goes up or down when a cloud passes overhead.
30 billion tons of CO2 is trivial when compared to the 5000 times more H2O vapor shading "elephants" [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva]than the CO2 "lions" at any given time in our atmosphere.
the "30 billion tons of CO2" You quote, Is that 30 billion long or short tons ?
Photo synthesis of the earth`s vegetation consumes 150 000 000 to 175 000 000 000 (short) tons of CO2 to produce Your "elephant food" and to sustain the rest of the food chain, like Your "lions" that would not exist if there were no CO2...."oh dur hur hur"



[/FONT]

 

[IanC]

if you compare two temperature stations in Hawaii, each at the same elevation and distance to the ocean but one with a higher humidity than the other, which will have a higher daytime temp? the drier one.

water in its various forms has an overall moderating effect on temperatures. while water vapour does trap heat close to the surface it also reduces the density of air which then rises taking heat with it. clouds can have either a positive or negative effect on the energy budget depending on the type and the altitude. the uncertainty involved in just clouds is more than enough to totally swamp the effect of CO2.

 

[westwall]

Quite right, water vapor a positive driver, if it gets hotter, there will be more of it and it more effectively traps heat, this exacerbates the heat trapping produced by that little trace of co2. Well, as if 30 billion tons is trivial.

Except, that as more research is done, water vapor appears to be a strongly NEGATIVE forcer...

 

[westwall]

And he's on your local TV news' weather segment?

Yes, he's the chief meteorologist for the station.

What station?

Channel two in Reno, his name is Mike Alger if you really want to know, just ask, it's no secret!

 

[polarbear]

if you compare two temperature stations in Hawaii, each at the same elevation and distance to the ocean but one with a higher humidity than the other, which will have a higher daytime temp? the drier one.

water in its various forms has an overall moderating effect on temperatures. while water vapour does trap heat close to the surface it also reduces the density of air which then rises taking heat with it. clouds can have either a positive or negative effect on the energy budget depending on the type and the altitude. the uncertainty involved in just clouds is more than enough to totally swamp the effect of CO2.

You`ll have a hard time finding many stations at the same elevation
X% RH at sea level is not the same as X% RH at a higher elevation.
All stations report Relative Humidity and not Absolute Humidity and hardly any tell You their elevation...unless You listen to aviation MetS. or look it up Yourself.
Clouds reflect more down-coming light (energy) up as "blocking" the far lesser energy carried by up-going reflected or re-emitted light.
Any time a cloud moves overhead a thermometer records a lower temp than what it was at that location in direct sunlight....
Regardless of height water vapor weighs only 18 grams per mol- volume while all the other components like O2 = 32 grams, N2= 28 are more than 2 X as heavy.
This is why the rising convective air currents are so violent. It is not uncommon to get "sledge hammer" updrafts that can cause 3000 feet per minute vertical speed changes even with heavy air craft. That`s a lot of energy, just the mechanical component, not even counting the latent heat which is being conveyed to altitudes in excess of 40 000 feet in just a few minutes.

 

[Koios]

Yes, he's the chief meteorologist for the station.

What station?

Channel two in Reno, his name is Mike Alger if you really want to know, just ask, it's no secret!

Gotha. Sounds like a pretty good guy, having an undergrad degree in some technical, if unrealted subjects, from lil old Whitman in Southeast WA. Plus even came sorta close to a Rhodes Scolarship which is pretty good.

But you'll note that his Meteorology "Credentials" are of the sort that I mentioned when we veered onto this tanget, a coupla days back. It's a multiple choice test, along with an annual fee, so nice looking and chipper folks can be real live METEOROLOGISTS!!! with realtive ease, whether having some chemisty, communcations, theology or whatever background. The top qualification is looking good on TV.

And to suggest those folks are somehow better qualified than Climatologists at NOAA, etc, etc, is patently absurd.

 

[polarbear]

Quite right, water vapor a positive driver, if it gets hotter, there will be more of it and it more effectively traps heat, this exacerbates the heat trapping produced by that little trace of co2. Well, as if 30 billion tons is trivial.

"positive driver" ...all You do is echo typical sensational buzzwords this crap science invented to impress gullible people like You who don`t have a clue.
If I`m wrong and You do, then define "positive driver".
So how, as You say, is water a 'positive driver" and "does more effectively trap even more heat"..???
When water evaporates it consumes no less than 40.7 kJ per mol.
Huge industrial cooling systems take advantage of that to cool water by letting a small portion of it evaporate and then recycle the so cooled remaining water.
And the wild blue yonder You call "the environment" works exactly the same way...although I suspect You don`t get out of Your city apartment often enough to experience what normal people call environment. Else You would know that it`s cooler during a hot summer day above a large body of water than it is over a dry desert. Furthermore the moist air is so much lighter than dry air that it rapidly rises, expands and cools...by 6.4 deg C per each 1000 meters altitude....till it`s at an altitude where it`s cool enough to hit the dew point, forms clouds, condenses and falls back to the ground either as water drops, cooler than the body of water from where it evaporated, as ice from a towering cumulus with updrafts violent enough to rip jetliners to pieces and produce hail storms, or as snow in the colder regions such as the one where I live.
We only get snow here if we get a mass of warm moist air from the U.S.
Greenland and Ellesmere Island glaciers also grow only when warm & moist air from the south invades these latitudes and all the ice in the antarctic came from regions that were warm enough to evaporate large amounts of water.
So how exactly is water a "positive driver"...of temperature...???
That kind of "positive driver",..crap comes from the same batch of crack heads that could not wait for Marihuana to be legalized...
They also hug trees to enjoy "positive energy" or experience "negative energy" hauntings and other hallucinations when their dope high wears off, which essentially disqualifies them for any regular job except "climatology" which is Government funded and paid for with the taxes that people with real jobs are paying. If water is a "positive driver" then we are sure as hell headed for doomsday and You better start shopping like the National Geographic`s dooms day "preppers"

Because 7/10 th of the earth`s surface is water and I sure as shit won`t park my Ford F150 and be fool enough to buy a Chevy Volt because of Your psychotic CO2 anxieties.

 

[asterism]

Quite right, water vapor a positive driver, if it gets hotter, there will be more of it and it more effectively traps heat, this exacerbates the heat trapping produced by that little trace of co2. Well, as if 30 billion tons is trivial.

"positive driver" ...all You do is echo typical sensational buzzwords this crap science invented to impress gullible people like You who don`t have a clue.
If I`m wrong and You do, then define "positive driver".
So how, as You say, is water a 'positive driver" and "does more effectively trap even more heat"..???
When water evaporates it consumes no less than 40.7 kJ per mol.
Huge industrial cooling systems take advantage of that to cool water by letting a small portion of it evaporate and then recycle the so cooled remaining water.
And the wild blue yonder You call "the environment" works exactly the same way...although I suspect You don`t get out of Your city apartment often enough to experience what normal people call environment. Else You would know that it`s cooler during a hot summer day above a large body of water than it is over a dry desert. Furthermore the moist air is so much lighter than dry air that it rapidly rises, expands and cools...by 6.4 deg C per each 1000 meters altitude....till it`s at an altitude where it`s cool enough to hit the dew point, forms clouds, condenses and falls back to the ground either as water drops, cooler than the body of water from where it evaporated, as ice from a towering cumulus with updrafts violent enough to rip jetliners to pieces and produce hail storms, or as snow in the colder regions such as the one where I live.
We only get snow here if we get a mass of warm moist air from the U.S.
Greenland and Ellesmere Island glaciers also grow only when warm & moist air from the south invades these latitudes and all the ice in the antarctic came from regions that were warm enough to evaporate large amounts of water.
So how exactly is water a "positive driver"...of temperature...???
That kind of "positive driver",..crap comes from the same batch of crack heads that could not wait for Marihuana to be legalized...
They also hug trees to enjoy "positive energy" or experience "negative energy" hauntings and other hallucinations when their dope high wears off, which essentially disqualifies them for any regular job except "climatology" which is Government funded and paid for with the taxes that people with real jobs are paying. If water is a "positive driver" then we are sure as hell headed for doomsday and You better start shopping like the National Geographic`s dooms day "preppers"

Because 7/10 th of the earth`s surface is water and I sure as shit won`t park my Ford F150 and be fool enough to buy a Chevy Volt because of Your psychotic CO2 anxieties.

Not to mention that the Volt uses the same amount of energy and thus has the same carbon footprint as any other vehicle.

 

[westwall]

What station?

Channel two in Reno, his name is Mike Alger if you really want to know, just ask, it's no secret!

Gotha. Sounds like a pretty good guy, having an undergrad degree in some technical, if unrealted subjects, from lil old Whitman in Southeast WA. Plus even came sorta close to a Rhodes Scolarship which is pretty good.

But you'll note that his Meteorology "Credentials" are of the sort that I mentioned when we veered onto this tanget, a coupla days back. It's a multiple choice test, along with an annual fee, so nice looking and chipper folks can be real live METEOROLOGISTS!!! with realtive ease, whether having some chemisty, communcations, theology or whatever background. The top qualification is looking good on TV.

And to suggest those folks are somehow better qualified than Climatologists at NOAA, etc, etc, is patently absurd.

Yeah, that's true. However someone with a METEOROLOGY degree actually does have a much stronger foundation in science than a climatologist. I actually took meteorology classes when I was getting my undergrad so am familiar with the science and it is quite exact, and difficult.

 

[ReallyMeow]

No, water vapor is an overall negative driver. Water has the unique ability to absorb and hold heat without getting warmer..

Wow, idiot, just wow. Please dont test these insane hypothesis against reality, you will scald yourself right into the ER.

the desert will be a lot warmer because of a decided lack of water vapor.

You do realize there are places that are cold, and dont have much moisture at the same time? You only have a meager understanding of the world, like a child with a picture book. The climate doesnt carry any humidity to the region, so the region has no water. Think about it, theres places where its hot and humid. Also, have you ever heard people say "its the humidity" or "at least its a dry heat"?

It absorbs Infrared light that has a wavelength of 15 µm and when the specific molecular bond oscillator is maxed out it immediately re-emits it in all directions, in a 360 deg steradian angle.

Therefore, less of it is going into space then? TA DAA

It does not retain any of the energy it absorbed.

You mean to tell me that co2 has a temperature of zero degrees kelvin?

Of course it is. That is why deserts burn during the day while coastal regions don't. Humidity the the factor that explains the difference between the daytime temperatures.

explain deserts next to the ocean.

meteorologist

climate isnt weather, you want a climate scientist.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiYZxOlCN10]I'm A Climate Scientist (HUNGRY BEAST) - YouTube[/ame]

Huge industrial cooling systems take advantage of that to cool water by letting a small portion of it evaporate and then recycle the so cooled remaining water.

Ok, you seem to understand that water absorbs heat, even when it is in a vapor form, and that industry uses this property to carry heat away from the heat source, allow some of it to escape and the rest to to cool (which takes time) and then pump it back through again, since there is some escaping, they must replenish this or it will all evaporate eventually. So where is the disconnect? There is water vapor in the air, instead of heat radiating off of the earth into space with nothing to stop it, there is an atmosphere that absorbs this heat, like a heat sponge. the end result is that all of the heat hasnt escaped by the next morning. It really isnt complicated.

 

[westwall]

No, water vapor is an overall negative driver. Water has the unique ability to absorb and hold heat without getting warmer..

Wow, idiot, just wow. Please dont test these insane hypothesis against reality, you will scald yourself right into the ER.

You do realize there are places that are cold, and dont have much moisture at the same time? You only have a meager understanding of the world, like a child with a picture book. The climate doesnt carry any humidity to the region, so the region has no water. Think about it, theres places where its hot and humid. Also, have you ever heard people say "its the humidity" or "at least its a dry heat"?


Therefore, less of it is going into space then? TA DAA

You mean to tell me that co2 has a temperature of zero degrees kelvin?

explain deserts next to the ocean.

climate isnt weather, you want a climate scientist.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiYZxOlCN10]I'm A Climate Scientist (HUNGRY BEAST) - YouTube[/ame]

Huge industrial cooling systems take advantage of that to cool water by letting a small portion of it evaporate and then recycle the so cooled remaining water.

Ok, you seem to understand that water absorbs heat, even when it is in a vapor form, and that industry uses this property to carry heat away from the heat source, allow some of it to escape and the rest to to cool (which takes time) and then pump it back through again, since there is some escaping, they must replenish this or it will all evaporate eventually. So where is the disconnect? There is water vapor in the air, instead of heat radiating off of the earth into space with nothing to stop it, there is an atmosphere that absorbs this heat, like a heat sponge. the end result is that all of the heat hasnt escaped by the next morning. It really isnt complicated.

PB has more scientific knowledge in his little pinky than you do in your whole body.

 

[Oddball]

Channel two in Reno, his name is Mike Alger if you really want to know, just ask, it's no secret!

Gotha. Sounds like a pretty good guy, having an undergrad degree in some technical, if unrealted subjects, from lil old Whitman in Southeast WA. Plus even came sorta close to a Rhodes Scolarship which is pretty good.

But you'll note that his Meteorology "Credentials" are of the sort that I mentioned when we veered onto this tanget, a coupla days back. It's a multiple choice test, along with an annual fee, so nice looking and chipper folks can be real live METEOROLOGISTS!!! with realtive ease, whether having some chemisty, communcations, theology or whatever background. The top qualification is looking good on TV.

And to suggest those folks are somehow better qualified than Climatologists at NOAA, etc, etc, is patently absurd.

Yeah, that's true. However someone with a METEOROLOGY degree actually does have a much stronger foundation in science than a climatologist. I actually took meteorology classes when I was getting my undergrad so am familiar with the science and it is quite exact, and difficult.

Shit, IFR and advanced glider pilots have a firmer grasp of atmospheric science than do climatologists.