What is Earth's 'correct' temperature?

[edthecynic]

I'm curious. What does the right think science has to gain from lying about "Global Warming"?

It's all about money honey. Phil Jones alone has pocketed (well it has gone to his group and he gets to distribute as he see's fit) 22.6 million dollars from the US taxpayer.

This lie has already been debunked, in spite of your own "pocketed" rationalization.
Let me refresh your memory:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2430487-post66.html

As I have said before, CON$ will continue to lie even after they've been exposed to the truth.
Thank you for proving me right yet again.

 

[westwall]

I'm curious. What does the right think science has to gain from lying about "Global Warming"?

It's all about money honey. Phil Jones alone has pocketed (well it has gone to his group and he gets to distribute as he see's fit) 22.6 million dollars from the US taxpayer.

This lie has already been debunked, in spite of your own "pocketed" rationalization.
Let me refresh your memory:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2430487-post66.html

As I have said before, CON$ will continue to lie even after they've been exposed to the truth.
Thank you for proving me right yet again.

I suggest you read the link I provided there ed the sicko,

In the academic world you have First Authors and Secondary Authors etc. on any one particular paper. Wherever you see Phil Jones listed first that means he is First Author, wherever he is second he is Second Author etc. He gets paid for every time he is listed.

Of course you are not familiar with the academic world (clearly!) so you wouldn't understand the very basic methodology of getting paid for your work therein.

The only liar here is you...provably so.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ah4XLQCleuUYdFIxMnhMNnlXb2JQcDZUendjUXpWWUE&hl=en#gid=0

 

[Old Rocks]

Good for Dr. Jones. Nice to see a good man well paid.

 

[edthecynic]

It's all about money honey. Phil Jones alone has pocketed (well it has gone to his group and he gets to distribute as he see's fit) 22.6 million dollars from the US taxpayer.

This lie has already been debunked, in spite of your own "pocketed" rationalization.
Let me refresh your memory:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2430487-post66.html

As I have said before, CON$ will continue to lie even after they've been exposed to the truth.
Thank you for proving me right yet again.

I suggest you read the link I provided there ed the sicko,

In the academic world you have First Authors and Secondary Authors etc. on any one particular paper. Wherever you see Phil Jones listed first that means he is First Author, wherever he is second he is Second Author etc. He gets paid for every time he is listed.

Of course you are not familiar with the academic world (clearly!) so you wouldn't understand the very basic methodology of getting paid for your work therein.

The only liar here is you...provably so.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ah4XLQCleuUYdFIxMnhMNnlXb2JQcDZUendjUXpWWUE&hl=en#gid=0

You tried this same condescending bluff the last time you told this lie on the other thread. why do you think it will suddenly work now when it didn't work then?

As I pointed out then, MOST of the grants on your list were from the UK and the EU but you claimed that $22.6 million came from US tax payers. Since when did US citizens start paying UK and EU taxes???? As was pointed out to you the last time you told this lie, the only money coming from the US taxpayers was the less than $2 million that came from 8 grants from the US Dept of Energy, all of which was funded by a GOP controlled Congress and you CON$ always say congress controls the purse strings.

And as far as first and second author, what they might be paid is not the full amount of the grant, so he is neither pocketing nor controlling $22.6 million in US tax payers or any other's tax dollars, pounds or euros as you falsely claim, since payments and control is SHARED among the recipients of the grants. And that has nothing to do with the fact that most of the money did NOT come from US tax payers.

But thank you for again proving both that any stat from any CON$ervative can not be trusted and that when caught lying CON$ will just keep on lying.

 

[saveliberty]

The saying goes, it isn't so much the heat, as the humidity. What is the ideal humidity? Whatever that is, adjust so it feels like 72.

 

[code1211]

Why Code, follow your reasoning. So when you increase the GHGs in the atmosphere, you also increase the water vapor. By a bunch, by your reasoning.

Water vapor rises and falls as a percent of the total air. It always remains at about the same component level, give or take.

Again, why does the residence time of a molecule of CO2 make any difference to the Green House Effect vs. the residence time of a molecule of H2O when there is always another water vapor molecule rising to take the place of the one that is falling?

Now Code, you are really playing dumb on this. You know full well that water vapor is a feedback from the heat retained in the atmosphere. Since water remains in the atmosphere less than ten days, there has to be a mechanism by which the atmosphere retains heat to evaporate more water. That mechanism is CO2.

Increase the amount of CO2, and the atmosphere will hold more water. Which will fall out as rain and cool the atmosphere, untill a new, warmer equalibrium is established. Increase the CO2 some more, and an even warmer equalibrium will be established.

Following your train of logic, why has the level of Water Vapor remain stable in the face of rising CO2?

 

[saveliberty]

Water vapor rises and falls as a percent of the total air. It always remains at about the same component level, give or take.

Again, why does the residence time of a molecule of CO2 make any difference to the Green House Effect vs. the residence time of a molecule of H2O when there is always another water vapor molecule rising to take the place of the one that is falling?

Now Code, you are really playing dumb on this. You know full well that water vapor is a feedback from the heat retained in the atmosphere. Since water remains in the atmosphere less than ten days, there has to be a mechanism by which the atmosphere retains heat to evaporate more water. That mechanism is CO2.

Increase the amount of CO2, and the atmosphere will hold more water. Which will fall out as rain and cool the atmosphere, untill a new, warmer equalibrium is established. Increase the CO2 some more, and an even warmer equalibrium will be established.

Following your train of logic, why has the level of Water Vapor remain stable in the face of rising CO2?

Cause multiple parameters are too difficult for him to comprehend.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, Junk Science, for that is what this site truly is. Junk Science. Lies, and misleading half truths.

Look at the paragraphs below. Do you see anything at all that indicate the residence time of CO2 and H2O? That is extremely important, for the residence time of less than ten days for H2O versus two hundred years for CO2 renders these paragraphs a lie formed of half truths.
Water vapor is feedback from the GHGs in the atmosphere.

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

JunkScience.com -- The Real Inconvenient Truth: Greenhouse, global warming and some facts

I have asked this of you numerous times and have never gotten an answer that means anything. I'll repeat the same action and hope for a different result:

If the amount of water vapor remains constantly at a level of about 95% of all GHG's even though it is comprised of constantly rotating individual molecules, why is this anything other than an interesting but meaningless fact?

Does a GHG molecule of any description require experience to function as a GHG molecule?

Does a water vapor molecule "trap" more heat in it's last minute than in its first? How about CO2 or Methane.

Water vapor may be constantly replaced by other other water vapor in the air, but it is always about 95% of the total GHG component.

Why Code, follow your reasoning. So when you increase the GHGs in the atmosphere, you also increase the water vapor. By a bunch, by your reasoning.

That can be tested, why is it none of your warmist buddies have done so? Afraid of what they will find?

 

[IanC]

I have asked this of you numerous times and have never gotten an answer that means anything. I'll repeat the same action and hope for a different result:

If the amount of water vapor remains constantly at a level of about 95% of all GHG's even though it is comprised of constantly rotating individual molecules, why is this anything other than an interesting but meaningless fact?

Does a GHG molecule of any description require experience to function as a GHG molecule?

Does a water vapor molecule "trap" more heat in it's last minute than in its first? How about CO2 or Methane.

Water vapor may be constantly replaced by other other water vapor in the air, but it is always about 95% of the total GHG component.

Why Code, follow your reasoning. So when you increase the GHGs in the atmosphere, you also increase the water vapor. By a bunch, by your reasoning.

That can be tested, why is it none of your warmist buddies have done so? Afraid of what they will find?

if there were no GHG does that mean there would be no water vapor? lol

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm curious. What does the right think science has to gain from lying about "Global Warming"?

Not science. Scientists. And they get millions in grant money. Those who support their work use it to advance their agenda of greater government control over individual lives. That's why every proposed "solution" is some form of wealth redistribution.

Funny how the cultists insist "Follow the money!!" when it comes to skeptics, but not to fellow cultists, hmmm?

Dumbass Dave. Millions. Such a big figure for you. Of course, compared to the hundreds of billions of the fossil fuel companies.

Ain't the scientists lying, it is people like yourself.

 

[Old Rocks]

The controversy between Willson and Lean is over a decade old. And all the present graphs that I trust, those of NASA, NOAA, and the USGS, show a decline, very small, but a decline none the less, for the last 50 years. Thus far, no one has been able to show me why a decline in the TSI should result in further warming.

In fact, 2008 should have been a very cold year. One that was in the bottom 10 for warmth, not in the top ten. A very strong solar minimum with virtually no sunspots, a strong La Nina. But, depending on the record keepers, it ranked as either the tenth or eight warmest on record. And the next year, 2009, tied for second warmest. This is not indictutive of the TSI being the cause of the present warming. The primary change that we have seen is the additional GHGs that we have added to the atmosphere. And the physics of the additional GHGs state that we should be seeing that warming.

The Sun is More Active Now than Over the Last 8000 Years | SpaceRef - Your Space Reference

This guy says the sun is getting brighter, using the same methods as your guys. Your graphs of sunspots also show a gradual increase. The latest minimum is unusual and we don't know the reasons for it. We have had some realtime data since the telescope. Better data since spacecraft and satellites. Inferred data from ice cores and other similar methods. But we don't know all the ins and outs of our sun's mechanics, like why the sunspot cycle is variable. What other cycles are there and what is their timeframes? You keep acting as if we know it all but we are only taking first steps and nothing is close to being 'settled science'.

Yes, there is debate about whether the sun is brightening, or dimming. But the amount is a very small fraction of one percent in either case. As for the physics of the mechanisms within the sun, you are correct. We have little real understanding of it. Another satellite for the study of the sun, one that can answer a few questions, and probably provoke far more questions than those answered at this point, will be launch shortly.

Why NASA Keeps a Close Eye on the Sun's Irradiance

As a result, questions remain about how the sun's irradiance has changed. Richard Willson, principal investigator for NASA's Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor (ACRIM), reported in a 2003 paper that the overall brightness of the sun was increasing by 0.05 percent per decade.

Subsequent assessments of the same data have come to a different conclusion. Other groups of scientists have shown that the apparent upward trend is actually an artifact of the radiometers and how they degrade in orbit. Complicating the issue further, an instrument aboard NASA's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) measured irradiance levels during a solar minimum in 2008 that were actually lower than the previous solar minimum.

Which measurements are right? Has the sun experienced subtle brightening or dimming during the last few solar cycles? Such questions remain controversial, but the radiometer aboard Glory, called the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM), is ready to provide answers. The Glory TIM will be more accurate and stable than previous instruments because of unique optical and electrical advances. And each of its components has undergone a rigorous regime of calibrations at a newly-built facility at the University of Colorado.

By the way, thank you for the interesting article.

Think about this for a moment. The absorption spectra of the GHGs don't care what the TSI is, they will take in the same percentage whether it is up or down. But if you increase the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere, then the GHGs will retain a higher percentage of the outgoing heat. A higher TSI, higher amounts of GHGs in the atmosphere, and you have a lot more heat retained.

 

[edthecynic]

Why Code, follow your reasoning. So when you increase the GHGs in the atmosphere, you also increase the water vapor. By a bunch, by your reasoning.

That can be tested, why is it none of your warmist buddies have done so? Afraid of what they will find?

if there were no GHG does that mean there would be no water vapor? lol

How much water vapor is there in Mars' essentially GHG free atmosphere?

 

[Old Rocks]

Why Code, follow your reasoning. So when you increase the GHGs in the atmosphere, you also increase the water vapor. By a bunch, by your reasoning.

That can be tested, why is it none of your warmist buddies have done so? Afraid of what they will find?

if there were no GHG does that mean there would be no water vapor? lol

Very little. How much water can the atmosphere hold at -40 compared to 60 F?

The first calculations concerning incoming and outgoing heat were done by Joseph Fourier in 1820. The article below by Dr. Spencer is a reasonable exposition concerning the effects of GHGs. Quoting Dr. Lindzen, his faith in the weather to stabalize the temperatures seem rather naive at this point.

What If There Was No Greenhouse Effect? Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

That’s the Earth’s surface. But what would happen to the atmosphere at the same time? The cold air in contact with the warming ground would also begin to warm by thermal conduction. Convective air currents would transport this heat upward, gradually warming the atmosphere from the bottom up. Importantly, this ‘dry convection’ will result in a vertical temperature profile that falls off by 9.8 deg. C for every kilometer rise in altitude, which is the so-called ‘adiabatic lapse rate’. This is because rising warm air parcels cool as they expand at the lower air pressures aloft, and the air that sinks in response to all of that rising air must warm at the same rate by compression.

Eventually, the surface and lower atmosphere would warm until the rate at which infrared energy is lost by the Earth’s surface to space would equal the rate at which sunlight is absorbed by the surface, and the whole system would settle into a fairly repeatable day-night cycle of the surface heating (and lower atmosphere convecting) during the day, and the surface cooling (and a shallow layer of air in contact with it) during the night.

The global-average temperature at which this occurs would depend a lot on how reflective the Earth’s surface is to sunlight in our thought experiment. ..it could be anywhere from well below 0 deg F for a partially reflective Earth to about 45 deg. F for a totally black Earth.

 

[Old Rocks]

That can be tested, why is it none of your warmist buddies have done so? Afraid of what they will find?

if there were no GHG does that mean there would be no water vapor? lol

How much water vapor is there in Mars' essentially GHG free atmosphere?

The Martian atmosphere is 95% GHGs. CO2. And about 1% water vapor. And only 1% as dense as the Earths atmosphere. The gravity gradient of Mars is such that most of the water and other light elements have been stripped from its atmosphere over the billions of years of it's existance.

 

[edthecynic]

I have asked this of you numerous times and have never gotten an answer that means anything. I'll repeat the same action and hope for a different result:

If the amount of water vapor remains constantly at a level of about 95% of all GHG's even though it is comprised of constantly rotating individual molecules, why is this anything other than an interesting but meaningless fact?

Does a GHG molecule of any description require experience to function as a GHG molecule?

Does a water vapor molecule "trap" more heat in it's last minute than in its first? How about CO2 or Methane.

Water vapor may be constantly replaced by other other water vapor in the air, but it is always about 95% of the total GHG component.

Why Code, follow your reasoning. So when you increase the GHGs in the atmosphere, you also increase the water vapor. By a bunch, by your reasoning.

That can be tested, why is it none of your warmist buddies have done so? Afraid of what they will find?

NASA Outlines Recent Breakthroughs in Greenhouse Gas Research - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

In another major finding, scientists using AIRS data have removed most of the uncertainty about the role of water vapor in atmospheric models. The data are the strongest observational evidence to date for how water vapor responds to a warming climate.

"AIRS temperature and water vapor observations have corroborated climate model predictions that the warming of our climate produced as carbon dioxide levels rise will be greatly exacerbated -- in fact, more than doubled -- by water vapor," said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.

Dessler explained that most of the warming caused by carbon dioxide does not come directly from carbon dioxide, but from effects known as feedbacks. Water vapor is a particularly important feedback. As the climate warms, the atmosphere becomes more humid. Since water is a greenhouse gas, it serves as a powerful positive feedback to the climate system, amplifying the initial warming. AIRS measurements of water vapor reveal that water greatly amplifies warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide. Comparisons of AIRS data with models and re-analyses are in excellent agreement.

"The implication of these studies is that, should greenhouse gas emissions continue on their current course of increase, we are virtually certain to see Earth's climate warm by several degrees Celsius in the next century, unless some strong negative feedback mechanism emerges elsewhere in Earth's climate system," Dessler said.

 

[Old Rocks]

I have asked this of you numerous times and have never gotten an answer that means anything. I'll repeat the same action and hope for a different result:

If the amount of water vapor remains constantly at a level of about 95% of all GHG's even though it is comprised of constantly rotating individual molecules, why is this anything other than an interesting but meaningless fact?

Does a GHG molecule of any description require experience to function as a GHG molecule?

Does a water vapor molecule "trap" more heat in it's last minute than in its first? How about CO2 or Methane.

Water vapor may be constantly replaced by other other water vapor in the air, but it is always about 95% of the total GHG component.

Why Code, follow your reasoning. So when you increase the GHGs in the atmosphere, you also increase the water vapor. By a bunch, by your reasoning.

That can be tested, why is it none of your warmist buddies have done so? Afraid of what they will find?

It has been tested and found to be a fact. Look at the number of precipitation events. Where do you thing the extra water is coming from?

 

[Old Rocks]

Water vapor rises and falls as a percent of the total air. It always remains at about the same component level, give or take.

Again, why does the residence time of a molecule of CO2 make any difference to the Green House Effect vs. the residence time of a molecule of H2O when there is always another water vapor molecule rising to take the place of the one that is falling?

Now Code, you are really playing dumb on this. You know full well that water vapor is a feedback from the heat retained in the atmosphere. Since water remains in the atmosphere less than ten days, there has to be a mechanism by which the atmosphere retains heat to evaporate more water. That mechanism is CO2.

Increase the amount of CO2, and the atmosphere will hold more water. Which will fall out as rain and cool the atmosphere, untill a new, warmer equalibrium is established. Increase the CO2 some more, and an even warmer equalibrium will be established.

Following your train of logic, why has the level of Water Vapor remain stable in the face of rising CO2?

You made the claim that it has. Show your reasoning and proof of that claim. Then explain the increase in the number of precipitation events worldwide.

 

[Zander]

A brilliant and well-spoken argument

There is a an old Italian saying that says - "When you wash the head of a jackass, you waste both time and soap".

I don't argue with Evangelical Environazis like Old Rocks, they are jackasses.

You don't argue because you have no means of argueing. No evidence is on your side, just idiotic mindless Conservative talking points. You know full well that were to debate this problem on it's scientific basis you would get your pantyass butt kicked.

I have peer reviewed this post and find it lacking accuracy. Sorry Old Rocks.

I don't debate the "science" (sic) because the garbage you cut and paste is not science. It is political propaganda. The jig is up Old Rocks, everyone here knows that you're an hysterical Evangelical Environmentalist and that Globull Warming is your religion.

At least the religious fanatics admit their "science" is based upon faith, you people just lie, lie and lie some more.

 

[boedicca]

Ahem.

The Earth's perfect temperature is whatever is most comfortable for ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[saveliberty]

Ahem.

The Earth's perfect temperature is whatever is most comfortable for ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is tough for water nymphs. I like the pool to be 10 to 12 degrees cooler than air temp.