Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

The abstract of the paper is available through the AMS but when you downloaded the entire thing you once again get the one image per page pdf. This came from Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Convective Adjustment

Abstract
The states of thermal equilibrium (incorporating an adjustment of super-adiabatic stratification) as well as that of pure radiative equilibrium of the atmosphere are computed as the asymptotic steady state approached in an initial value problem. Recent measurements of absorptivities obtained for a wide range of pressure are used, and the scheme of computation is sufficiently general to include the effect of several layers of clouds.​
The atmosphere in thermal equilibrium has an isothermal lower stratosphere and an inversion in the upper stratosphere which are features observed in middle latitudes. The role of various gaseous absorbers (i.e., water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone), as well as the role of the clouds, is investigated by computing thermal equilibrium with and without one or two of these elements. The existence of ozone has very little effect on the equilibrium temperature of the earth's surface but a very important effect on the temperature throughout the stratosphere; the absorption of solar radiation by ozone in the upper and middle stratosphere, in addition to maintaining the warm temperature in that region, appears also to be necessary for the maintenance of the isothermal layer or slight inversion just above the tropopause. The thermal equilibrium state in the absence of solar insulation is computed by setting the temperature of the earth's surface at the observed polar value. In this case, the stratospheric temperature decreases monotonically with increasing altitude, whereas the corresponding state of pure radiative equilibrium has an inversion just above the level of the tropopause.​
A series of thermal equilibriums is computed for the distributions of absorbers typical of different latitudes. According to these results, the latitudinal variation of the distributions of ozone and water vapor may be partly responsible for the latitudinal variation of the thickness of the isothermal part of the stratosphere. Finally, the state of local radiative equilibrium of the stratosphere overlying a troposphere with the observed distribution of temperature is computed for each season and latitude. In the upper stratosphere of the winter hemisphere, a large latitudinal temperature gradient appears at the latitude of the polar-night jet stream, while in the upper statosphere of the summer hemisphere, the equilibrium temperature varies little with latitude. These features are consistent with the observed atmosphere. However, the computations predict an extremely cold polar night temperature in the upper stratosphere and a latitudinal decrease (toward the cold pole) of equilibrium temperature in the middle or lower stratosphere for winter and fall. This disagrees with observation, and suggests that explicit introduction of the dynamics of large scale motion is necessary.​

Strickler wanted to call the large scale motion a "turbo-vascularizer" but It was Manabe who insisted on calling it "C O N V E C T I O N"... ; - )

Has Ding quoted a single word from this paper? I don't think he has. Help us Ding. Show us where M & S (ooh... titter, titter, wink, wink) tell us what you believe they are telling us, with a few quotes and page numbers (now that I've had enough coffee to actually find something on the screen in front of me)
 
Last edited:
I just wanted to point out one simple thing just to be clear we're all on the same page. All the conclusions of the work under discussion, Manabe and Strickler 1964 are based ENTIRELY on pre-1964 computer climate models running on pre-1964 computers. Okay?

So, when somewhere down the line, poster Ding or any other denier who chimes in with him here tries to claim that computer models are inherently unreliable... well, the internet has a long memory.
 
:itsok:
When in doubt, project yourself!

I'm sure Spencer (if he's still around) understands your dire predicament and prefers you plagiarize his stuff rather than credit him.
As long as you understand the principle that all he's going to care about. I'm glad you accept it now.
 
What I see is nothing on page 362 that would produce numbers.
It doesn't say it in numbers there. It says it in words. Then you have to figure out their graphs and read it from the graph. It's over both of your heads. I bet you can't even find the words that describe it.
 
It didn't take you to a website? Don't be an idiot. It took you to a website which provided you that pdf. Just because it did nothing else doesn't mean it wasn't a website.

When you put Manabe and Strickler 1964 into Google, you get eleven different URLs on the first page. There is no guarantee that your readers are going to the same site as you. That's one of the reasons you provide the fucking link. I had no problem doing that.

It's not unreasonable to dismiss out of hand the word of known liars.
I'm not going to argue with you about this. I'm telling you I clicked on a link in google that downloaded a pdf instead of taking me to a website.
 
I love the fact how strongly you are resisting this because it shows just how much you believe this is damaging to your religion.
 
I'm not going to argue with you about this. I'm telling you I clicked on a link in google that downloaded a pdf instead of taking me to a website.
And I am telling you that you should have copied THAT LINK to a post and that you have NO reason to argue otherwise.
 
The abstract of the paper is available through the AMS but when you downloaded the entire thing you once again get the one image per page pdf. This came from Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Convective Adjustment

Abstract
The states of thermal equilibrium (incorporating an adjustment of super-adiabatic stratification) as well as that of pure radiative equilibrium of the atmosphere are computed as the asymptotic steady state approached in an initial value problem. Recent measurements of absorptivities obtained for a wide range of pressure are used, and the scheme of computation is sufficiently general to include the effect of several layers of clouds.​
The atmosphere in thermal equilibrium has an isothermal lower stratosphere and an inversion in the upper stratosphere which are features observed in middle latitudes. The role of various gaseous absorbers (i.e., water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone), as well as the role of the clouds, is investigated by computing thermal equilibrium with and without one or two of these elements. The existence of ozone has very little effect on the equilibrium temperature of the earth's surface but a very important effect on the temperature throughout the stratosphere; the absorption of solar radiation by ozone in the upper and middle stratosphere, in addition to maintaining the warm temperature in that region, appears also to be necessary for the maintenance of the isothermal layer or slight inversion just above the tropopause. The thermal equilibrium state in the absence of solar insulation is computed by setting the temperature of the earth's surface at the observed polar value. In this case, the stratospheric temperature decreases monotonically with increasing altitude, whereas the corresponding state of pure radiative equilibrium has an inversion just above the level of the tropopause.​
A series of thermal equilibriums is computed for the distributions of absorbers typical of different latitudes. According to these results, the latitudinal variation of the distributions of ozone and water vapor may be partly responsible for the latitudinal variation of the thickness of the isothermal part of the stratosphere. Finally, the state of local radiative equilibrium of the stratosphere overlying a troposphere with the observed distribution of temperature is computed for each season and latitude. In the upper stratosphere of the winter hemisphere, a large latitudinal temperature gradient appears at the latitude of the polar-night jet stream, while in the upper statosphere of the summer hemisphere, the equilibrium temperature varies little with latitude. These features are consistent with the observed atmosphere. However, the computations predict an extremely cold polar night temperature in the upper stratosphere and a latitudinal decrease (toward the cold pole) of equilibrium temperature in the middle or lower stratosphere for winter and fall. This disagrees with observation, and suggests that explicit introduction of the dynamics of large scale motion is necessary.​

Strickler wanted to call the large scale motion a "turbo-vascularizer" but It was Manabe who insisted on calling it "C O N V E C T I O N"... ; - )

Has Ding quoted a single word from this paper? I don't think he has. Help us Ding. Show us where M & S (ooh... titter, titter, wink, wink) tell us what you believe they are telling us, with a few quotes and page numbers (now that I've had enough coffee to actually find something on the screen in front of me)
It's not my fault that neither of you are capable of reading their paper and understanding what they are writing. Which is weird because the title is a dead give away.
 
It's not my fault that neither of you are capable of reading their paper and understanding what they are writing. Which is weird because the title is a dead give away.

This thread is for denying the greenhouse effect ... and giving this effect magical properties is a type of denial ...

They use statistics, which means they're lying ... +1ºC doesn't change weather, it doesn't change climate ... except for magic pigeon shit dust ...
 
This thread is for denying the greenhouse effect ... and giving this effect magical properties is a type of denial ...

They use statistics, which means they're lying ... +1ºC doesn't change weather, it doesn't change climate ... except for magic pigeon shit dust ...
How do you explain the larger observed warming?
 
It's not my fault that neither of you are capable of reading their paper and understanding what they are writing. Which is weird because the title is a dead give away.
Where have you gotten the absurd idea that climate scientists are unaware of and/or do not incorporate convective processes in current climate calculations? M & S's paper is to be found in the libraries of NOAA and NAS and the AMS. It's not like the hidden wisdom of the fucking pyramids.
 
Where have you gotten the absurd idea that climate scientists are unaware of and/or do not incorporate convective processes in current climate calculations? M & S's paper is to be found in the libraries of NOAA and NAS and the AMS. It's not like the hidden wisdom of the fucking pyramids.
Or that it isn't from SIXTY (SIX ZERO) fucking years ago.
 
This thread is for denying the greenhouse effect ... and giving this effect magical properties is a type of denial ...

They use statistics, which means they're lying ... +1ºC doesn't change weather, it doesn't change climate ... except for magic pigeon shit dust ...
Let's try this again. If you reject the magnitude of the positive feedbacks, how do you explain the differenence between the calculated greenhouse gas effect value and the observed warming?
 

Forum List

Back
Top