tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post1538778022235327122..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Atmospheric water vapour is a feedback (not forcing) - on Watts and Eschenbach #AGU16 posterSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-81752996357249979352016-12-18T19:47:45.628+11:002016-12-18T19:47:45.628+11:00My question is still invisible, and Neville's ...My question is still invisible, and Neville's carbon copy remains unanswered.<br /><br />If I wasn't so busy extracting the Michael from <a href="http://greatwhitecon.info/2013/10/the-david-and-judy-show/" rel="nofollow">the David and Judy Show</a> at the moment I might have a go at the Willis and Watts Show too!Jim Hunthttp://greatwhitecon.info/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14151582359711210802016-12-18T16:34:09.319+11:002016-12-18T16:34:09.319+11:00I thought for a minute that you meant that Willis ...I thought for a minute that you meant that Willis had written and article for The Conversation (and wondered how he qualified). I'm relieved to find it's a few comments, filled with false equivalence :)<br /><br />Why don't deniers ever give examples? That's a rhetorical question. If they do, they are not examples. (Eg one commenter claimed that removing Bob Carter's adjunct professor status when he'd stopped contributing, was equivalent to stopping government research in an entire field of science.)<br /><br />Frankly, that lot are more than nasty. Willis wrote a similar article at WUWT, supporting a McCarthy-style purge of climate scientists. Disinformers don't like knowledge. Why anyone thinks that stopping science will stop global warming is beyond me. It can only make it worse, because decisions about how to address it will not be informed by the latest facts.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-87438443969219394082016-12-18T16:10:12.739+11:002016-12-18T16:10:12.739+11:00All I can say is "well, he would say that, wo...All I can say is "well, he would say that, would he?"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67887821688901611832016-12-18T10:48:57.567+11:002016-12-18T10:48:57.567+11:00Willis Eschenbach justifying climate McCarthyism a...Willis Eschenbach justifying climate McCarthyism at The Conversation.<br /><br />https://theconversation.com/profiles/willis-eschenbach-144153/activities<br />MikeHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-87068100530913888942016-12-18T03:23:25.265+11:002016-12-18T03:23:25.265+11:00Harry,
I think it is water vapor that is a greenho...Harry,<br /><i>I think it is water vapor that is a greenhouse gas, not water droplets</i><br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water#Vibrational_spectrum" rel="nofollow">Liquid water absorbs IR</a> and at similar fundamental frequencies as the gaseous form. I see no reason why liquid, or indeed solid, water should not be a greenhouse, err, absorber. Indeed, I think this is nature of the positive cloud feedback. The profile of the absorption bands will be different, as the Wikipedia explains, because of hydrogen bonding and lack of rotational fine structure (gas molecules are free to rotate, liquid molecules are, by their very nature, constrained in a (fluid) lattice. For the GHE, the H-O-H bend is the most significant, since it co-incides most with trhe distribution of frequencies from earthlight.swimbouynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36780281322592721422016-12-16T10:34:11.661+11:002016-12-16T10:34:11.661+11:00No chance. Pencils are useful.No chance. Pencils are useful.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24157423330610982612016-12-16T09:59:40.860+11:002016-12-16T09:59:40.860+11:00Sorry, I missed this comment and Arthur's when...Sorry, I missed this comment and Arthur's when I responded....and Then There's Physicshttp://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73975738883782790262016-12-16T09:58:45.331+11:002016-12-16T09:58:45.331+11:00Yes, Paul is right. The chart is forcings only. ...Yes, Paul is right. The chart is forcings only. Given a warming of 1K and a planetary energy imbalance of around 0.7W/m^2, the combined forcing plus feedback is around 3.9W/m^2 (3.2 + 0.7). The chart shows a total anthropogenic of 2.3 W/m^2....and Then There's Physicshttp://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39717969502284747712016-12-16T09:42:12.437+11:002016-12-16T09:42:12.437+11:00What Olivier said. Some people at WUWT said they h...What Olivier said. Some people at WUWT said they had trouble downloading the zip file. I didn't.<br /><br />BTW - I see that you need to register now to get RSS data. Seems a simple process, but you'll have to wait to get a confirmation email. Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-58644682762053387882016-12-16T09:17:16.310+11:002016-12-16T09:17:16.310+11:00*the scientists, *the internet geeks
Sorry my engl...*the scientists, *the internet geeks<br />Sorry my english is very bad... Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05598136175803660988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-80297221580159393522016-12-16T09:12:29.024+11:002016-12-16T09:12:29.024+11:00Mostly CERES and TPW data, which explains the size...Mostly CERES and TPW data, which explains the size of the file. Work of Willis is only some few lines of codes, with even a link to stackoverflow. He can thank the scientifics who bring to him open data, and internet geek who explain him how to write R code...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05598136175803660988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82758953801165206702016-12-16T07:36:49.401+11:002016-12-16T07:36:49.401+11:00I think it is water vapor that is a greenhouse gas...I think it is water vapor that is a greenhouse gas, not water droplets which are not vapor. I am sure water droplets are important but they do not act as a greenhouse gas.<br /><br />There is a physical formula that shows how much water vapor the atmosphere will hold on average as a function of average temperature.<br /><br />The way it was explained to me is an increase in rain events is because the average air circulation slows down because of global warming. A slower air circulation means that rain-bearing clouds will hang around longer in a given region thus you get more rain. It also means an increase in drought events by the same logic.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-56845045503200091452016-12-16T07:28:54.803+11:002016-12-16T07:28:54.803+11:00WUWT said they have not blocked me. It sounds like...WUWT said they have not blocked me. It sounds like a "but that is not my dog"-type argument. I think that people like myself and others are in permanent moderation so your comment is not automatically posted. And if you comment is never approved, then it will never be seen. So comments are not "blocked" in a technical sense, even though the outcome is the same.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-5525240964939437362016-12-16T05:55:32.823+11:002016-12-16T05:55:32.823+11:00What a sight those two must present for people ent...What a sight those two must present for people entering the venue.<br /><br />Two 'Flat-Earthers' at a geology convention.<br /><br />Are they wearing sandwich boards and selling pencils from a cup?DavidRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-43022902999731157432016-12-16T05:53:44.003+11:002016-12-16T05:53:44.003+11:00@ TB, what I notice when reading those WUWT thread...@ TB, what I notice when reading those WUWT threads, discounting the obvious sycophantic lunatics <br /><br />is that like all conspiracy theorists they never deal with the "elephant in the room" i.e. the bootstrap issue - they always want to go deep into the weeds, pulling maths equations by the dozen - right out of their backsides and <br />generally obsessing over irrelevant details to make themselves look smart - the goal is simply to win a rhetorical argument <br /><br />911 Twoofers will spend days arguing the toss over chemical compounds of various bits of rubbish, the explosive properties of nano thermite, the shape of iron spheres blah blah, yet in reality never dealing with the obvious issues - basically, like the Whutters because they can't <br /><br />Tadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41459824772869021632016-12-16T05:06:44.451+11:002016-12-16T05:06:44.451+11:00Anyone else managed to download the code and data,...Anyone else managed to download the code and data, btw? It consistently fails for me at 53%.MartinMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12378483250151121375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-56967111497251508092016-12-16T04:55:45.817+11:002016-12-16T04:55:45.817+11:00"Higher temperature of the atmosphere means h..."Higher temperature of the atmosphere means high up drafts..."<br /><br />The lapse rate is the most important thing regarding the strength of updraft - which means, relatively cooler air over warmer (wrt to an SALR ). The higher the WV content then leads to large droplet size held aloft by those updrafts.<br />An extreme updraft combined with backing winds with height will induce tornadic activity.Tony Bantonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12255065592950357838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85848429021217597592016-12-16T04:52:24.343+11:002016-12-16T04:52:24.343+11:00Tony - I wasn't taking periodic archives of th...Tony - I wasn't taking periodic archives of that one I'm afraid, and it doesn't look like anybody else was either.<br /><br />They've played that trick on me a few times however. By way of example:<br /><br /><a href="http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/09/watts-up-with-the-inconvenient-arctic-hiatus/" rel="nofollow">http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/09/watts-up-with-the-inconvenient-arctic-hiatus/</a><br /><br />Be sure to read the comments too. There's lots of us down the WUWT "memory hole"!Jim Hunthttp://greatwhitecon.info/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45641072920656933662016-12-16T04:12:05.841+11:002016-12-16T04:12:05.841+11:00Missed off the last bit of Moore's sycophancy....Missed off the last bit of Moore's sycophancy....<br /><br />"We are so PROUD of you"<br /><br />Where's the sick-bag?Tony Bantonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12255065592950357838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-51333666155175864412016-12-16T04:09:16.131+11:002016-12-16T04:09:16.131+11:00Jim:
I'm confounded.
Just been back ....
https...Jim:<br />I'm confounded.<br />Just been back ....<br />https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/13/agu16-noaas-releases-their-annual-arctic-report-card/<br />And my post is back again!<br />Oh, of course. Remove when the thread is "current" and stick them back later.<br /><br />Tadaaa:<br />Yes the denizens cannot wrap their tiny minds around how if WV increase is caused of itself, then the forcing that Willis (it'll be him not Watts) have "discovered" would feedback on itself ad infinitum until all the oceans had boiled away<br />Amazing what the mind can believe when your science is the ideologically motivated kind.<br />Anyway, they got their "love and kisses" from the particularly sycophantic ones (Janice Moore)......<br /><br />"… the increase in downwelling radiation over the period as calculated by … the increase in downwelling radiation over the period as calculated by the IPCC, with little corresponding change in temperature …<br />is the knock-out punch to AGW.<br /><br />Game over.<br /><br />GO GET ‘EM, ANTHONY AND WILLIS!<br /><br />(“’em” are the climate hu$tler$’ scientists-for-hire )."<br /><br />So pathetic.Tony Bantonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12255065592950357838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-26748354151472460772016-12-16T03:12:43.742+11:002016-12-16T03:12:43.742+11:00Tony - I am unfailingly polite, but the mere menti...Tony - I am unfailingly polite, but the mere mention of actual Arctic data seems to guarantee a red card at WUWT!<br /><br />Which thread did your comment disappear from? Just in case I happen to have a historical record of the event!Jim Hunthttp://greatwhitecon.info/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82030866107138318552016-12-16T02:50:56.011+11:002016-12-16T02:50:56.011+11:00@ Tony Banton
I have an acknowledged limited und...@ Tony Banton <br /><br />I have an acknowledged limited undertsanding of the deep science/physics/maths of AGW, but when I read this post it seemed to me that Willis and Watts were asking Water Vapour to "pull itself up from its bootstrap" to become a "forcing"<br /><br />offering no physical mechanism to do so <br /><br />when I skimmed the WUWT posts I noticed you had use the exact same phrase !!!<br /><br />pseudoscience at its finest <br /><br /> Tadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-1539051543487430762016-12-16T01:33:02.413+11:002016-12-16T01:33:02.413+11:00Jim:
Nick seems to be tolerated there, maybe becau...Jim:<br />Nick seems to be tolerated there, maybe because he is polite and restrained in his responses, especially to Willis, and generally ignores the vitriol towards him.<br />I ended on the "cutting room floor" yesterday after posting some stuff (graph of Arctic ice in Aug 1938 and longer-term one of ice extent) from sks.<br />Obviously verboten.<br />They were there but when I went back had been removed.Tony Bantonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12255065592950357838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-56919361137660025522016-12-16T00:22:29.176+11:002016-12-16T00:22:29.176+11:00Thanks to Neville Bott for popping the question to...Thanks to Neville Bott for popping the question to Willis & Willard.<br /><br /><a href="https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/809386254919933953" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/809386254919933953</a><br /><br />"No answer!" is still the stern reply.Jim Hunthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14677943707472091348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-6125588554122844832016-12-15T23:59:07.791+11:002016-12-15T23:59:07.791+11:00Thanks to PaulS and Arthur for pulling me up on on...Thanks to PaulS and Arthur for pulling me up on one bit I wrote above, now corrected.The chart isn't the combined forcing with feedback, it's just the radiative forcing. The feedbacks are on top of that.<br /><br />(I took the time to read IPCC's AR5 Chapter 8, where radiative forcing, effective radiative forcing and other matters are discussed.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.com