We Are Better Than This

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 6/2/2019 at 3:51 PM, Rodent said:

The next person to surprise the heck out of me by responding to someone else with an opposing viewpoint in a respectful manner (maybe try imagining debating with your dad on a subject over which you disagree, for those of you who are lacking in the social graces department) will get a good sport medal.  

Can y'all actually hand out medals? 

[Rodent + 1,424]

1 minute ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Can y'all actually hand out medals? 

Indeed I can! A virtual medal.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

11 minutes ago, Rodent said:

Indeed I can! A virtual medal.

Don't forget, now.  I have been a good sport about all the negative comments heaved my way  (including those from a moderator rank, which taunting I have studiously ignored).  That should qualify, maybe. 

[Red + 252]

13 hours ago, specinho said:

How water vapour could possibly drive climate change could be as follow:

Yes, they could be.  However they are not, because there is no science to show that water vapour is able to drive climate change.

Your speculation has no foundation in climate science.

[Red + 252]

3 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2973

We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.

If you lived above the clouds then you would be colder than models showed.  Nobody lives above the clouds.

The purpose of climate models is to derive temperatures on land.  They seem to be doing this reasonably well in that what has occurred since the first GCM projections were derived are consistent with the warming temperatures.

 

What I now note, which is always the case with those in denial of climate science, is that the goalposts have shifted.  

I again have no idea what points you are trying to make, just as it was impossible to follow Marc's earlier posts due to a failing of both logic and science.

I have read the NIPCC playbook on climate and elsewhere in cyberspace countered all their contentions.  What I read here is wholly consistent with the argument structures presented in past defence of DDT, asbestos, and smoking (and maybe we soon can add Roundup).

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

28 minutes ago, Red said:

I again have no idea

And that, as they say, is that. You have no idea, YOU brought up troposphere, then, FINALLY realizing your error, pretend you were talking about the ground all along. You're not 1/10th as clever as you pretend you are, but I really have zero interest in talking with you anymore. You're like nailing jelly to a tree. 

[Red + 252]

25 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

YOU brought up troposphere, then, FINALLY realizing your error, pretend you were talking about the ground all along.

You referenced Ollila's paper, and water vapour.  It is only relevant in the troposphere.

You would need to show where I erred, as your points to date have no alignment with climate science.

[Rodent + 1,424]

I ordered up some new medals (thanks, @CMOP) and, while trying not to let the power go to my head, will start assigning them. 

I decided against a "jackhole" medal for fear I would have to hand out too many. You know who you are!

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

22 hours ago, Rodent said:

Indeed I can! A virtual medal.

https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2016/05/soldier-medals.jpg?resize=733,412

[specinho + 467]

On 6/6/2019 at 4:56 AM, Red said:

Yes, they could be.  However they are not, because there is no science to show that water vapour is able to drive climate change.

Your speculation has no foundation in climate science.

Your objection is as strong as minion below......... who says:"

[Red + 252]

4 hours ago, specinho said:

Your objection is as strong as minion below......... who says:"

[specinho + 467]

20 hours ago, Red said:

 So glad you are aware........ you are one of the two......... 

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, specinho said:

 So glad you are aware........ you are one of the two......... 

That would be as accurate as your other claims which rely on denial of the obvious.

[specinho + 467]

20 hours ago, Red said:

That would be as accurate as your other claims which rely on denial of the obvious.

And yours as real as image below....

Edited June 10, 2019 by specinho

[Red + 252]

Let's look at your mumbo jumbo:

On 6/5/2019 at 5:31 PM, specinho said:

Heat capacity of water in the air has been the only factor that can drive changes in terms of heat availability; clouds availability; influence the amount of rain etc..... Hence..... water vapour is the driving force of climate change.

Which means that in your eyes water vapour is like a perpetual motion machine, warming the planet while insolation decreases.

Except it would mean that the planet could never cool.

There is no climate science that makes your ideas credible, and there is zero logic.

 

 

[specinho + 467]

Quote

  On 6/5/2019 at 3:31 PM, specinho said:

Heat capacity of water in the air has been the only factor that can drive changes in terms of heat availability; clouds availability; influence the amount of rain etc..... Hence..... water vapour is the driving force of climate change.

On 6/11/2019 at 5:25 AM, Red said:

Let's look at your mumbo jumbo:

Which means that in your eyes water vapour is like a perpetual motion machine, warming the planet while insolation decreases.

Except it would mean that the planet could never cool.

There is no climate science that makes your ideas credible, and there is zero logic.

Your contradictory remarks could be as curious as this kid below:

[Red + 252]

5 hours ago, specinho said:

Your contradictory remarks could be as curious as this kid below:

The truism of science denialists is their obfuscation. They are not capable of a credible position so revert to distraction, irrelevance and sheer nonsense.

Rodent might give you a medal for your excellent effort.

[specinho + 467]

On 6/16/2019 at 6:50 AM, Red said:

The truism of science denialists is their obfuscation. They are not capable of a credible position so revert to distraction, irrelevance and sheer nonsense.

Rodent might give you a medal for your excellent effort.

For strong beholders of science absolutism....... they are not capable of perceiving things outside of their common boxes or expertist..............

Cartoon: snoopy & woodstock by Charles M Schulz, 1986

Snoopy:" I love nature books. Here's an interesting item:
*a cod fish may lay as many as 9 million eggs at one time*."

Wood stock:" ////////?"

Snoopy:" No.. It doesn't say who counted them."

Edited July 3, 2019 by specinho

[Physics Prof. + 5]

Why are you comparing T at constant P?   On Earth, 1 atm means you're on the ground.  On Venus it means you live in the upper atmosphere  !    Obviously Teff from the SB Law is similar in the two planets by energy balance since incident solar flux and albedo difference about cancel.  But obviously it's the ground temp that's of practical interest as an object lesson, for us ground-dwellers.

 

[Bob D + 562]

2 hours ago, Physics Prof. said:

Why are you comparing T at constant P?   On Earth, 1 atm means you're on the ground.  On Venus it means you live in the upper atmosphere  !    Obviously Teff from the SB Law is similar in the two planets by energy balance since incident solar flux and albedo difference about cancel.  But obviously it's the ground temp that's of practical interest as an object lesson, for us ground-dwellers.

 

To whom are you replying?  Whose side are you on?