sort of like when all the global warming people said that katrina was a result of global warming?

We're all global warming people, blizzak. Some of us prefer to escape responsibility by denying reality.

Global warming is a global fraud.

Warmers pick and choose storms to blame on GW all the time. Its about time deniers did the same thing.

When you see a post like Anthony's, if taken serious, it's a wonder we ever passed the Clean Air and Water Acts.

I wonder if we'll ever get the historical context of how effective this legislation was, and the huge public policy success it proved to be.

We forget so easily what our excesses were doing, and how well we responded when we were informed about it as a nation.

We are talking about a Manhatton size effort to renewable and sustainable energy sourses that leaves the enviroment better than we left it for our future generations. This policy serves the national security, economic prosperity, and enviromental responsiblity that I would believe is self evident for our nation's future.

So, why is this so controversial?? Could it be that the oil/coal industries don't see it to be best for them? Do we owe them more than we have already sacrificed in blood and treasure? Is that what the Republicans, and Faux News are so upset about?

Posted by: blizzak | Feb 12, 2010 12:12:56 PM

sort of like when all the global warming people said that katrina was a result of global warming?

That would depend if they were speaking as you are or if they were referring to the 30 year build up in Atlantic hurricanes, and they're increased intensity, of which Katrina was an example.

On balance though, I have to admit to being a skeptic about Katrina on at least one count. That first week in September is almost guaranteed to produce a major hurricane.

FLASH!!

This Brand New Video Blows a Huge Gaping Hole in Obama's Cap and Tax Scheme and his Claims of Global Warming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVm5-6H_sH4

CommieBlaster??

That is real comedy! So, who is the Commie? What qualifies as a "Commie."

Is it wanting to be able to breath the air, or is it drinking clean water? Or is it the idea our government would do something collectively for the collective good.

There, I said it. Collective!!! Oh, my God, I'm a Commie. Hold on, if I'm a Commie I don't believe in God. These lables are so hard. The issues don't seem to fit them the way these people want them to.

Happy Thoughts!

Are you really this stupid? That you would parrot such balderdash? I watched Rachael Maddow have an entire segment on this nonsense. There is not a single person you can point to who even remotely suggested this recent snow storm is "proof" there ia no AGW.

That's ridiculous on it's face. But that never stops your left wing loons from attributing everything imaginable to AGW.

Hartman is about the worst but Bill Bradbury is a horribly propagandizer. Claiming Portland Airport and downtown will be under water if CO2 emissions are not reduced. What a loon.

In the real world, collective evidence of sloppy and fabricated AGW science the snow is neither support for or against AGW.

HOWEVER, it's friggin stupid to claim it's consistent WITH global warming. Especially after many claimed earlier the absence of snow was also consistent with AGW.

Mocking the AGW theory by pointing at the record snow is entirely legitimate as mocking goes.

Your spin that it is the irrational conclusion of prooof all by itself is just more of your BS.

Now what about those "science" proven dead zones?

I suspect you don't remember your foolishness on those. Or are we to start all over again as if you know something.

Richard,

You obviously were not watching FoxNews earlier this week.

CommieBlaster:

If you think Al Gore is conspiring to grab power, or inflict a ponzi scheme on America, I'm listening.

I listened to the clip you linked. I have a real problem with this poorly constructed collage of misinformation. I have seen most of those hearings and speeches when they happened, and have seen the movie that predicts the severe winter storms we're experiencing as well.

A bunch of politicians that have nothing of any substance to offer aside their skeptism is hardly proof, or evidence of anything.

CommieBlaster=Snowjob?

Remember the long voyages our submarines would make under the ice pack? Remember how we use to marvel about how a nuclear sub could stay months under the ice, and would never need to emerge?

I wonder where they play now? No ice pack left to speak of, the Russians are planting flags on the sea floor as territory. I can't remember anybody thinking that was going to happen, except maybe Al Gore.

Deny it if you like, scoff if you like, but 30 years ago when this son of a coal rich family became concerned about this he did make these predictions, and was painted a nut for saying it. The Russians aren't laughing!!

But, even after reality makes his case, the skeptics have only their skeptism and little else to offer.

RE: the katrina thing,

I'm not sure I remember anyone directly attributing Katrina's existence to global warming, rather pointing to it as the kind of storm we could expect with more frequency with warmer sea temps.

BTW: The Columbia is tidal to Bonneville, and PDX is below water level parts of the year, it doesn't take too much more to top the dike, or overwhelm the pumps. Not that that area would ever suffer a flood- vanport?

"The folks who love to deny that global climate change is happening..." - Kari

global climate change? What happened to global warming?

Now, it's "Global Climate Change" so matter what the weather does - as Progressives - we need to tax it and manage the solution to improve everyone lives and save humanity!

"suggesting that the snowstorm in DC is somehow proof that the globe isn't warming up"

Then neither is a heatwave in Rio. One day, you may get something of substance here besides a lot of confilciting opinions and bloviation - Unless, you do have some facts.

Always enjoy the entertainment here.

Is this how you hide from the mountain of contradicting and refuting evidence. Blathering on with spin about the snow.

Jake, I saw plenty of Fox news and on MSNBC Rachael Maddow had excerts and not one of them had anyone claiming the record snow was proof AGW didn't exist.

What they did was pile it on top of the mountain of evidence AGW is a fabrication.

None of you bother checking anything.

Hmmm, I have tried now four times to post a response. The text contains web references, so I'm guessing that a filter is preventing it.

So this post is as much a test as anything. Apologies for the noise.

Meanwhile they're trucking in snow for the Olympics in B.C.

Tim,

I could post and endless stream of material you are ignorant of or have deliberately avoided like nearly every progressive has. I could wrap them in sugar and spice and everything nice and you fools wold still ignore them.

But just on the farce of the arctic ice melt as evidence of AGW, try this.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/ 1922 "The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm." 1922 1922

The lengthy list of loony blue connections to AGW is by far the mother of all boneheaded movements.

Despite your collective blue pretenses and declarations you could not be more wrong, lazy and dishonest.

I urge you all to continue the cause and provide the regular dose of your lunacy for public consideration.

Funny how when we have a hot spell in the summer you never hear a word about it from the global warming deniers.

"Meanwhile they're trucking in snow for the Olympics in B.C."

Snowpack all over the Pacific Northwest is far below normal for this time of year. Of course the global warming deniers just ignore that.

"But, even after reality makes his case, the skeptics have only their skeptism and little else to offer."

I often think that the right-wingers deny the reality of global climate change simply because the left-wingers believe in it. Whatever the left thinks, they think the opposite in classic knee-jerk Pavlovian fashion.

dartagnan,

Oh how you wander aimlessly.

No there's nothing "Funny how when we have a hot spell in the summer you never hear a word about it from the global warming deniers."

But them the skeptics words on the cold are not what you loons have concocted either.

Warm, cold, cold, warm it's all what it is.

But who exactly are the ones stacking up the many baseless and fabricated claims of attributiion to AGW?

Your ludicrous camp has compiled such a broad spectrum of sceanarios that no matter what happens anywhere it's AGW.

Snowpack trends all over the Pacific Northwest are not showing any unique and AGW related evidence.

Yet Phil Mote and others have made claims there is.

It's not "global warming deniers just ignoring" the snow fluctuations".

Not in the slightest. You're incappable of recognizing the tracking the issue and debate accurately

You can't even manage to graps the local arena.

What "reality makes his case" for the Oregon ocean dead zones being linked to AGW?

The answer is the fabricated reality you cling to.

The reason "right-wingers deny your fabricated reality of global climate change" is we recognize the BS peddled by your camp.

But again I urge you to continue your lunacy. It's going well for the right.

Checking into Olberman, Maddow, Hartman, Malloy and RFK Jr is a fine way to track that progress.

Global warming is a fact. How it will change our climate, no one really knows.

Funny how when we have a hot spell in the summer you never hear a word about it from the global warming deniers.

Actually, dartagnan, what they say in the summer during a heat wave is "just because it's hot now doesn't mean that we have global warming."

They try to have it both ways.

Oh, and snow isn't evidence of relative cold. In fact, it can be evidence of warming.

Let's say your average temperature is 10° F. Air at that temperature doesn't hold much moisture, and so it's relatively difficult to have huge amounts of snow when that's the air temperature.

Air at 28° F can hold significantly more moisture, and so can produce greater amounts of precipitation. Since it's still below freezing, that means that warmer air leads to significantly greater snowfall.

Richard, 1922??? 1922??? No radar, no satelites, most of the ice pack had even been seen, never mind even mapped. The North Pole was only originally discovered in 1909, and your best evidence is the impression of fishermen a 100yrs ago?

Richard, it's seems painfully obvious that truth, or honest debate has divorsed your process some time ago. Ideals divorsed from a discipline for the truth is little more than dillusion. Whether I believe the stunningly overwhelming science, and virtually the whole worlds governments embrace of the condition would be irrelevant. I am in favor of renewable resources the same way I was when Jimmy Carter pointed out to the nation the obvious benefits of ending our dependance to fossil fuels.

Enviromentally, or Economically the policy is long over due. We learned that shortly after OPEC began to fix the price of oil. The obvious lesson of 9-11 for most of us is that we need to separate ourselves from the Middle-East Politics, and tend to our own.

Of course, we could all be very afraid as the Republicans want us to be and goose step our way to another war for oil, or not.

Richard, 1922??? 1922??? No radar, no satelites, most of the ice pack had even been seen, never mind even mapped. The North Pole was only originally discovered in 1909, and your best evidence is the impression of fishermen a 100yrs ago?

Richard, it's seems painfully obvious that truth, or honest debate has divorsed your process some time ago. Ideals divorsed from a discipline for the truth is little more than dillusion. Whether I believe the stunningly overwhelming science, and virtually the whole worlds governments embrace of the condition would be irrelevant. I am in favor of renewable resources the same way I was when Jimmy Carter pointed out to the nation the obvious benefits of ending our dependance to fossil fuels.

Enviromentally, or Economically the policy is long over due. We learned that shortly after OPEC began to fix the price of oil. The obvious lesson of 9-11 for most of us is that we need to separate ourselves from the Middle-East Politics, and tend to our own.

Of course, we could all be very afraid as the Republicans want us to be and goose step our way to another war for oil, or not.

Kari: I notice every time you write about "climate change" you claim "deniers" always claim it is not happening. This is not true. The issue has never been whether the climate is, can or will change with time, it is whether humans have anything to do with it.

I maintain that not one shred of proof has ever been offered to date that human activity is causing the earths climate to shift. Pointing to any changes does not establish any link, and the CO2 IR radiation hypothesis is weak at best and fraudulaently wrong when applied in any modeling schemes used for climate, that produce false water vapor feedbacls along with all of he other time limiting litannys that constarin the useability of such a model.

Speaking of the DC snows, several AGW proponents have been on record in the past as claiming the LACK OF SNOW in DC and on the east coast in prior years was undeniable proof that CO2 was causing climate change and humans were responsible. Barbie Boxer stated this as part of the US Senate record in 2003. Before this winters storms, Robert Kennedy Junior went on record and said the same thing. Now, after the fact, with record snowfalls in almost every eastern seaboard major city, these same people now claim the snow is proof of "global warming", and "climate change". So which is it? The lack of snow or the record snow that offers the proof? This is idiotic and mind numbing!

While it is true that a warmer volume of air can hold more water vapor, the warmer volume does not guarantee the water vapor is present, and you still have to cool the air temperature down to the saturation vapor pressure or lower to condense and precipitate out the actual water vapor content to get your snowflakes. It just so happens, Kari, that this occured on the east coast recently with temperatures that were all below the seasonal averages. So where does the "warming" come from that caused these events?

The academic circles that continue to promote the AGW rot deserve to have their public funding cut off. This has been a horrific waste of taxpayer money to attempt to secure the big prize of taxing and regulating every sector of society with carbon controls that in effect, secures the futures of the very people who have promoted the lies through their own deceptions and incompetence for their own self centered personal gains.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

First, Chuck says Kari: I notice every time you write about "climate change" you claim "deniers" always claim it is not happening. This is not true.

Then he says It just so happens, Kari, that this occured on the east coast recently with temperatures that were all below the seasonal averages. So where does the "warming" come from that caused these events?

Chuck, you prove your first claim wrong by doing exactly you said was "not true".

fbear: Let me make it easy for you to understand:

The east coast storms and lack of in prior years were the claims of AGW proponents that used them to claim humans are causing "climate change" and "global warming" and have played both sides of this and made them part of their false but renewed assertions. The facts concerning the actual temperatures disprove this that accompanied the snows.

My first paragraph concerning Kari's prior comments have nothing to do with this. They were Kari's repeated assertions, past and present that "deniers" ( who are actually climate realists ) claim that the climate isn't changing or doesn't change with time.

Chuck, an episode of cold weather doesn't mean disprove anything.

You're trying to have it both ways--you're both trying to say that temperatures aren't actually going up, yet also saying that temperatures are going up but aren't going up by human activity.

CW, talking weatherhead has never cogently rebutted the pretty thorough deconstruction he got here, last November.

Changes in the Gulf stream are real, consequential, and happening. Do you claim that we don't know that it is caused by human activity, or that you know that it isn't? The "conservative" position on this is to not conduct a huge atmospheric experiment, altering the CO2 and aeresols balance, until that IS known. I guess no one remembers 50 years ago, when there where theories of an imminent ice expansion, that those same data cherry-pickers said not to fear, because we produce enough CO2 to possibly delay or forestall it altogether. The points from the November "discussion" are well taken. CO2's effect on global climate temperature is well accepted in the closest planetary models we can study. It was set and settled science before the pocketbook came into play.

Had to laugh at a 1967 Dr. Who that I watched the other night. The Ice Warriors from Mars were testing the Dr's knowledge of planetary mechanics, and his big test question involved realizing that they were cooling the earth by removing the CO2 from the atmosphere. He should have just whisked them off in the TARDIS to 2010 and said, "ah, but that's not an established fact"! Of course, the Dr. has been to Venus.

Zarathustra: Yeah, boy, that sure was a whippin I got you referred to. Are you sure you don't need some reading glasses here? Cause that reference to the other thread I was on last December sure looked to me like it was the other way around.

So I'm just a "talking head". Who are you? A self proclaimed expert? Care to tell us or hide in annonymity?

The Gulf Stream and a lot of other ocean atmospheric dynamics change fairly constantly and over time. You have NOT nor has ANYONE established a link of causation to ANY of this to human activity. Period! You haven't even measured the extra absorbed radiation that is theoretically calculated using the Schwarzschild equation of radiative transfer from increasing or doubling CO2, let alone have a WORKING model that handles the complex interface of the ocean atmospheric system through time.

I am not, nor woould any sensible person be open to having the government tax and regulate ANYTHING under this unproven construct. And NO, we are NOT conducting an "experiment" with human life to take this position. The Climate modeling comstruct is completely at odds with what it projected and what we have observed, and ALL of the projections are at odds with the founding contructs in physics regarding CO2 and water vapor written out years ago.

And Venus as any earth example?? OMG! that statement proves you are scientifically illiterate about this subject. The planets ( Earth and Venus ) are so drastically different there is no relevant comparison, and no, Zarathustra, a 92 bar atmosphere of CO2 does not explain at all how CO2 works on earth in the presence of water vapor. Good Lord! What crap!

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

Please remain aware that the only organized opposition to the concept of global warming is 99.9% financed by corporations. The corporate media supports this distortion of the facts because profits are still more important than people to the corporate person.

How can the US Supreme Court possibly conclude that a corporation has the same rights as a living breathing human being under the Bill of Rights?

Ole Barn: Please remain aware that > 90% of pro AGW "science" is funded by government and for the government.

Government has become academia's biggest client. And the other portion is made up of grants given by liberal trust funds and also the same evil corporations you refer to. Except these are new corporations that promote green energy under the auspicies that government will force a cap and trade system on the public, and they are waiting to cash in and make big profits with the help of government regulations.

Chuck, have you ever worked with the National Weather Service? If so, should we discount anything you say because you've "received government funding"?

fbear: Well, no, actually I'm a private sector kinda guy. I like my independence and breathing room from other employers rules, so, no, I never took a government job nor have I received any government funding for anything.

And frankly, I feel sorry for NWS employees that had to work rotating shifts to cover a 24 hour span all of their careers. That is hard on the body and mind to have to change your sleeping cycle every two weeks. GAWD! No thanks!

The reason why I brought it up to Ole Barn is that I believe government and academia are too close. In fact, they are bed partners! Especially here.

No sooner did Obama get elected that he appointed Jane Lubchenco from OSU to head NOAA. She is a radical environmentalist with radical and unproven claims about dead zones on the coast and human links to climate change.

Now, she is apparently ( and with the help of this President ) going to politicize a government agency ( NOAA ) by having it engage in things far outside its core mission with climate, and has made boisterous and false claims about the "robustness" of climate models and how NOAA can use them to predict such things as where to plant future wind farms.

Yet Lubchenco is not an atmospheric scientist or even oceanographer.

So now we will get a new global warming propaganda center up in Alaska, just like the one at OSU in Corvallis, that will create and share the same sort of cliamte astuteness we got from NASA and the IPCC.

I think they should name the new facility "West Anglia". At least that will have a tone of honesty in it for the 80 some billion I think Obama plans to spend on it and maybe remind the public just what they're getting for their money.

Chuck, I seem to remember back in the days that you were broadcasting in the 70s that much of the information was coming from the NWS. Am I incorrect in that?

Notice I didn't write "for" the NWS, I wrote "with". Did you really never base a forecast, at least partially, on information you got from the NWS?

fbear: In order to engage in profesional weather foreacsting, you do ahve to rely on information from the NWS.

The reason for this is that the Weather Service ( formerly the US Weather Bureau) by default and declaration under the federal government was that its core functions were properly placed in the public domain under the presumption that weather forecasting, especially involving weather warnings of impending disaster from severe storms including tornadoes and hurricanes belonged as a function of government.

At the very beginning of the development of the Weather Bureau, the agency could have been privatized but not without a tremendous amount of daily expense and working capital to provide and man weather stations across the country, hire theoraticians and dynamicists to develop computer models,and launch satellites in tandem with NASA. If the expenses could have been meted out to all direct users for the service at its inception it could have run in this manner, but now, too much R&D, along with taxpayer investment has made it too large just to "sell it off". No one could afford to buy it.

Very large amounts of money were spent over the years to improve communications and satellites and develop short term modeling which is the core function of NOAA that is spun out into several ares that include daily weather forecasting.

I used the data sets, analysis and models to arrive at my own conclusions about what tomorrows weather would bring ( ocasionally plotted my own surface pressure analysis from the ship reports that were available on the USWB teletype network ) and prepared my own forcasts for use in radio and television, carrying on the legacy of the Portland TV meteorologist pioneers, Jack Capell and Bob Lynott.

But I fail to see what the use of this information does to discredit my views on government funded climate research. The two are different subjects, differently funded, and to my knowledge, there was never any fraudulant misuse of public funds by the development of the US Weather Bureau or US National Weather Service.

Would anyone care to address the fact that only the Abrhamic religions believe in subjugating the earth and that all pagan religions have regarded you all as deniers for centuries? Maybe return to your roots .

Abrahamic religions kill, kill, kill, in the name of...a loving God.

Eleven attempts at posting - each time waiting for hours between attempts - each time reformatting and removing anything that seems like it'll get caught in a filter.

And each time the post fails to appear. Blueoregon, thy name is frustration.

Tenth try at posting this! I suspect the links are causing some filter to stop submission. I've removed the links and just put locations and search strings for verification.

Few would argue that the climate doesn't change. The claim that the changes are anthropogenic in nature (and the veracity of those making such claims) is far from certain. What follows are some examples (they were bullets, but I've reformatted them to be paragraphs - apologies for the stilted language).

The UN's apology for the poor science and resulting erroneous assertion that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear (The Guardian, search for UN Himalayan glaciers mistake).

Again, the UN's admission of overstating how much the Netherlands is below sea level (Reuters, search for climate panel admits dutch sea level flaw).

Jones of the UEA and his CRU colleagues' very unscientific behavior in hiding and manipulating data (The Times, search for scientists scandal hid climate data).

The many accredited scientists and researchers (including climatologists and meteorologists) who dispute the AGW claims (see the petition project web site - avoiding anything that looks like a link here).

Despite politicians' assertions, the science is clearly NOT settled. Consensus is NOT established. Implementing policy based on AGW is premature.

Interesting. I took a saved copy of my post, cut out IPCC & Jones first name and split the petition project web site name into two words. Now the post appears.

Lest it seem I'm accusing Blue Oregon of selective filtering, I'm not. I'm just puzzled at what it was (in the formatting) that was preventing the post from appearing.

Will you ever answer the points, or is ad hominem all you have, weather man?

Posted by: Zarathustra | Dec 2, 2009 5:22:10 PM

Posted by: Chuck Wiese | Dec 2, 2009 4:49:09 PM

Peri Brown: I won't engage you in a political discussion

It would be nice if you kept your word. Got links to your pubs? This is a political blog. If you choose to post here, you are engaging in a political discussion. Am really tired of these wannabees posting their "science" here like it constitutes publication.

So, Chuck, where do you get your funding now?

Here are a few links:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece

These are not fringe sources. The claims are not "whacko". They are at the core of the subject.

Setting any policy now based on AGW is premature, to say the least.

fbear : I get no funding from government or big oil. My concern about this was amplified several years back when hearing Algore inject his incompetence and arrogance into climate by making his wild and unsubstantiated asssertions that special interest money in government has helped him tout.

I could care less if any idiot on the street wants to proclaim CO2 emissions are destroying the earth and we must act as long as who ever it is doing it doesn't try to affect or project their self serving will on the masses or steal from them by using scare tactics which is what Gore has helped into fruition.Gore crossed the line with this crap years ago and continues to get worse. He is, in my opinion, a bonified AGW nut case.

My mission here is to educate and expose AGW fraud and lying wherever I see it. The issue is really only political in the sense that most of it has emanated and stinked from the left. But I don't care about that per se. I only want it to stop and I will criticize harshly any political spectrunm for continuing to promote false science and claims that are unproven.

So, Chuck, you're saying that CO2 in the air has no effect on global climate?

And Chuck, I didn't ask where you don't get your funding, I asked where you do get your funding. Apparently you aren't keen on divulging that information. So the point holds--how can we trust that you're not biased based on your funding, since you won't even tell us where your funding comes from.

fbear: No, I never said Co2 has no effect on climate, but the effects it does have are secondary and ALREADY ESTABLISHED.

In scientific jargon, this means the 15 micron wavelength is saturated where it counts, in other words, adding more won't change anything. If you assume the earth is a perfect Planck emitter, then at the mean earth temperature of 59 degF, DF/DT = 5.42 Wm-2K-1 and in integrating that wavelength to TOA, you get 68 Wm-2, which translates to about 12 degC of temperature rise from a zero absorption condition.

But a couple of things. The earth is not a perfect Planck emitter and Co2 and water vapor are a bit at odds with each other concerning water vapors optical depth. So this figure is not absolute by any means and likely much less by several degrees. Also remember this condition is already here and has been for thousands of years.

Regarding funding, I told you I don't get ANY money from the fossil fuel industry or a penny from government or ANY entity that could be construed by anyone as a conflict of interest to my position. The time I have spent on climate is of my own volition out of being a concerned citizen and is donated to the better cause of reeducating the mases from Algores BS.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

fbear: BTW, I know someone will likely try and come back and claim the saturation argument is bull. With respect to absorption of radiation at the wings of Co2, that is correct. But there is a huge hurdle to overcome in the wing lines of the spectrum, and that is the absorbing power of Co2 is very low here and it takes a lot of atmospheric depth to get the results obtained in modeling. That puts the entire hypothesis in question on several fronts because climate models can't model clouds or many other parameters that would affect the end result of what this additional absorption means. Worse yet, there are no measurements that validate any of the modeling, infact the latest paper by Lindzen from MIT dumps all over this using satellite measurements from the ERBE data. It is not looking good for Algore.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

Richard wrote:

Jake, I saw plenty of Fox news and on MSNBC Rachael Maddow had excerts and not one of them had anyone claiming the record snow was proof AGW didn't exist.

<hr/>

None of you bother checking anything.

Fox News, right-wing media deserve a snowball in the kisser

Brain Freeze: Conservative media still using winter weather to attack global warming

Chuck, CO2 is pretty evenly spread throughout the whole depth of the atmosphere while water vapor is limited largely to the troposphere with a little in the stratosphere. The CO2 in the upper atmosphere effectively raises the altitude at which the outgoing radiation equals the incoming radiation. That increases the depth of the atmosphere in regards to radiative transfer and so forces the layers below to warm up in order to radiate the same amount of energy and maintain balance.

Riverat: You need to study the greenhouse effect and understand it better as well as radiation before commenting. Your statement is entirely incorrect.

If outgoing radiation equaled incoming at the effective emission height of CO2's 15 micron band and the wing bands, there would be no greenhouse effect from Co2.

The "greenhouse effect" is caused by incident outgoing IR radiation entering the gaseous phase from the surface, being absorbed and reemitted depending on the pressure and coefficients of absorption and then being radiated from the effective altitude's temperature at which the absorption is complete.The greater the absorption, the longer the pathway through the atmosphere and the less the radiation is emitted to space. The difference in radiating temperature from the surface, intermediate level and tropopause and stratosphere is what determines what radiation is not escaping and requires surface emission to occur at a shorter wavelength which requires a higher temperature. Usually. But water vapor complicates the process enormously.

Co2 is well mixed in the troposphere, but rapidly changing pressure with altitude requires correcting to a modified optical depth, which causes a divergence of the IR beam and cooling of the higher layers. Increasing CO2 then is at odds with the increased downwell radiation at the sideband wings that compete with the limiting of the optical depth of water vapor. Water vapor produces this cooling effect in the troposphere much more pronounced than CO2, and it is the resulting convective overturn that releases heat energy back to the troposphere by the production of latent heat.

Climate modeling has incorrectly warmed the troposphere by increasing Co2 by creating false positive water vapor feedbacks. This has been proven wrong by observing changes in the tropical troposphere who's "hot spot" failed to materialize as projected by these bogus models, and like I havew stated so many times, the model construct is producing results at odds with the founding work in atmospheric radiation. It should be apparent to most anyone willing to look at the facts that Algore and his concepts ( derived from Roger Revelle from Csripts Ocean Institute and who recanted and rescinded his views when he retired ) are incorrect, misleading and fraudulent.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

Think tank spew without a disclaimer, this cut and paste crap, should be treated as link spam. There's nothing falsifiable about any of it, and hence it's propaganda, not science. Would you let "no" on M66 cut and paste a flier into every discussion on the measures?

He's just like the link spammers. Found a soft target with a high page view count that he can parasitize.

Zarathustra: Just show where any of it is wrong. You can't. Deflect from topic and insult, your stated purpose and MO.

That is political hacking, not science.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

Chuck, it would take me a week or more of study to give a detailed answer to your last post and I have better things to do with my time. I do have a question though. Do your calculations include the whole turbosphere? The turbosphere is the area of atmosphere up to around 100 km where the gases are well mixed. The stratosphere tops out around 50 km. CO2 concentration is about 0.039% throughout that whole volume. I believe the calculations change a bit as the air thins out but you can't ignore it.

But in the end though the question comes down to "Do I believe you, admittedly a trained meteorologist, or do I believe the many scientists whose job it is to study climate in detail?" I chose the latter until I see evidence of serious scientific malfeasance by them.

Riverat: The "turbosphere" could not possibly extend to 50 KM beyond the stratosphere. There is no bouyant convection of any significance at this altitude or any significant absorption or emission of IR radiation.

You are about as close to zero pressure as you could get here so there is no significance to your question and how it interacts with anything I hve already stated.

Study hard. You'll eventually overcome your obsession and belief in human caused global warming.

Chuck Wiese Meteorologist

I Googled "turbopause" and found any number of references including peer reviewed papers that stated the level is around 100 km. The atmosphere at 100 km is still thick enough that a satellite can't orbit at that elevation. The bottom of the low earth orbit band is at 160 km. The atmosphere above the stratosphere may not be significant to weather forecasting but that doesn't mean it's not significant to climate.