Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And so we are to accept that you are smarter than 99% of the world's atmospheric scientists? Yes or no.
31,000 scientists did not sign a petition saying I was wrong. Pravda has as much integrity and credibility as the National Enquirer.
The people who signed the OISM petition were NOT even predominantly scientists and were definitely NOT climate scientists. The signatories make up roughly 0.3% (3 out of 1,000) of science graduates and includes the names of only 39 climate scientists (1 in 1,000 signatories). The degrees allowed by the OISM include numerous categories who have nothing to do with any branch of climate science (medical doctor, veterinarian, electrical engineer, nuclear engineer, biologist, etc) and requires that signatories have only a bachelor's of science degree or higher. No one with a BSc is doing professional research and few even with masters degrees. Neither is it possible to verify the accuracy of the OISM list.
The IPCC has made use of thousands of degreed, working climate scientists. Their analysis reports, thousands of pages long, are based on hundreds of peer reviewed studies published in refereed journals. They are compendiums of the results of reviewed, comprehensive and detailed studies by PhDs in climate sciences of climate problems and topics; not the offhand opinions of a nearly random selection of people who chose to mail a pre-printed post card.
You keep running from the facts, sonny. Stomp your foot and keep repeating, "My religion is AGW, My religion is AGW".31,000 scientists did not sign a petition saying I was wrong. Pravda has as much integrity and credibility as the National Enquirer.
The people who signed the OISM petition were NOT even predominantly scientists and were definitely NOT climate scientists. The signatories make up roughly 0.3% (3 out of 1,000) of science graduates and includes the names of only 39 climate scientists (1 in 1,000 signatories). The degrees allowed by the OISM include numerous categories who have nothing to do with any branch of climate science (medical doctor, veterinarian, electrical engineer, nuclear engineer, biologist, etc) and requires that signatories have only a bachelor's of science degree or higher. No one with a BSc is doing professional research and few even with masters degrees. Neither is it possible to verify the accuracy of the OISM list.
The IPCC has made use of thousands of degreed, working climate scientists. Their analysis reports, thousands of pages long, are based on hundreds of peer reviewed studies published in refereed journals. They are compendiums of the results of reviewed, comprehensive and detailed studies by PhDs in climate sciences of climate problems and topics; not the offhand opinions of a nearly random selection of people who chose to mail a pre-printed post card.
Where are you abraham? If the dry adiabatic lapse rate is twice as steep as the wet adiabatic lapse rate (observed by hundreds of thousands of radiosondes, aircraft thermometers, and a host of other observation methods) indicating that the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, in reality, has a cooling effect, what does that do to the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science? Clearly the real world observations prove beyond doubt that they have it wrong.
Where are you abraham? If the dry adiabatic lapse rate is twice as steep as the wet adiabatic lapse rate (observed by hundreds of thousands of radiosondes, aircraft thermometers, and a host of other observation methods) indicating that the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, in reality, has a cooling effect, what does that do to the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science? Clearly the real world observations prove beyond doubt that they have it wrong.
Please explain how the difference in the two lapse rates leads water vapor to be a net coolant.
And, just for jollies, make certain you include what is getting cooled by the water vapor and where the heat energy ends up.
Here abe, it seems that you might not know what the adiabatic lapse rate is and what is meant by the difference in the lapse rate of wet air vs dry air.
Notice the rate of change for moist tropical air vs dry polar air....see how much more the change is for moist air vs dry air....H20, the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere has a cooling effect like it or not. Now square that with the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science.
pravda? Are you fucking kidding me? Pravda?
Fucking idiots.
your fucking ignorance bores me!
Then feel free to get back to the Cartoon Channel. And don't let your mom catch you getting her makeup on your Batman sheet set.
Where are you abraham? If the dry adiabatic lapse rate is twice as steep as the wet adiabatic lapse rate (observed by hundreds of thousands of radiosondes, aircraft thermometers, and a host of other observation methods) indicating that the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, in reality, has a cooling effect, what does that do to the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science? Clearly the real world observations prove beyond doubt that they have it wrong.
Please explain how the difference in the two lapse rates leads water vapor to be a net coolant.
And, just for jollies, make certain you include what is getting cooled by the water vapor and where the heat energy ends up.
Are you saying that for all your bluster you don't know what the adiabatic lapse rate of dry air vs wet air means? I will provide you an answer but for all your talk of being an ocean engineer, etc, it strikes me as damned interesting that you wouldn't know and understand such a basic piece of information.
Here abe, it seems that you might not know what the adiabatic lapse rate is and what is meant by the difference in the lapse rate of wet air vs dry air.
Notice the rate of change for moist tropical air vs dry polar air....see how much more the change is for moist air vs dry air....H20, the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere has a cooling effect like it or not. Now square that with the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science.
SSDD
John Tyndall performed quantitative experiments demonstrating and measuring the absorption and reradiation of IR from most of the atmosphere's greenhouse gases. That satisfies your demand. Your turn. Show us some valid research that supports your contentions.
The term greenhouse is a misnomer...CO2 does absorb and emit very narrow bands of LW radiation but it does not cause warming. And the best performing GCM's are those that are based on a very low sensitivity to CO2 even though they don't do a very good job either...but they are far superior to those which assume 2-4 degrees for doubling.
The ideal gas laws support my claims.
no greenhouse effect has ever been measured.
If what you have to say is only what you've said before, why not just keep it to yourself? We heard you the first time. Having missed it is not the reason no one responds to your posts. And if you stop putting the same post up here time after time, perhaps it'll give you the time to read IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and see just how astoundingly ignorant your statements sound to be.
I'd also like to ask you where you got that chart. That would appear to be a simple temperature vs altitude graph. If so, that is NOT an illustration of lapse rate.
Here abe, it seems that you might not know what the adiabatic lapse rate is and what is meant by the difference in the lapse rate of wet air vs dry air.
Notice the rate of change for moist tropical air vs dry polar air....see how much more the change is for moist air vs dry air....H20, the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere has a cooling effect like it or not. Now square that with the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science.
I see. I happened to know what the dry and wet or saturated lapse rates are. What I didn't know - and still don't - is why you think they will cause moisture to be a net coolant. Let me start out by pointing out a bit of a mistake on your part. The saturated lapse rate is, as I thought you first stated, shallower than the dry. Wet air does NOT cool off faster than dry air with increasing altitude. It cools off more SLOWLY because latent heat is used condensing its water vapor. Go ahead and look it up.
Now at that point you just gave us a "Hey Presto, I win" How about a REAL explanation as to why you think the differences in lapse rates and humidity make water vapor a net coolant. I'd also like to know what you think is being cooled and where you think the heat is going.
Think you can handle that?
ps: you originally said: "If the dry adiabatic lapse rate is twice as steep as the wet adiabatic lapse rate (observed by hundreds of thousands of radiosondes, aircraft thermometers, and a host of other observation methods)". P'raps you need to settle on what it is you actually want to say here first.