quote:

Originally posted by Lost in Kate Winslet:
Have you not thought this through?

I read the whole link through. Look at the discussions at the bottom. My umpteen page reply triggered off a BB alarm bell so you'll have to make do with this:-


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a...y-argument/#more-455

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:

quote:

Originally posted by Lost in Kate Winslet:
Have you not thought this through?

I read the whole link through. Look at the discussions at the bottom. My umpteen page reply triggered off a BB alarm bell so you'll have to make do with this:-


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a...y-argument/#more-455]link

Yes well, reading the link and understanding the problematic nature of the article are two different things.

Lets remind ourselves of your comment:

"Neat timing! The latest RC posts are precisely on why CO2 is heating up the earth. Basically there’s little water vapour up in the stratosphere but that manmade CO2 spreads everywhere. Good article IMHO."

This is by anybody's standards a dodgy statement which even goes against what other realclimate authors think (such as Gavin).

As I stated before, the consensus is that stratospheric cooling is a fingerprint of AGW. This article takes the precisely opposite opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Lost in Kate Winslet:
This article takes the precisely opposite opinion.

??

Whereabouts?

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:

quote:

Originally posted by Lost in Kate Winslet:
This article takes the precisely opposite opinion.

??

Whereabouts?

This is the problem with cut and paste merchants - they just don't understand what they are quoting.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lost in Kate Winslet:

Lets remind ourselves of your comment:

"Neat timing! The latest RC posts are precisely on why CO2 is heating up the earth. Basically there’s little water vapour up in the stratosphere but that manmade CO2 spreads everywhere. Good article IMHO."

This is by anybody's standards a dodgy statement which even goes against what other realclimate authors think (such as Gavin).

QUOTE]



Maybe by your standards.LIKW. You’re approaching idiot escape velocity.
Taking on the basic physics of AGW makes the charge of the Light Brigade seem like a pony trek.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a...y-argument/#more-455
QUOTE
"acutely aware of how very dry the air gets at upper altitudes — indeed the stratosphere has scarcely any water vapor at all."
QUOTE

But you don’t like my cut and paste so...

From “Atmosphere, Weather & Climate”, Barry & Chorley, 4th Edition, Methuen, ISBN 0-416-33690-6
QUOTE
Air is a mechanical mixture of gases… rocket observations show these gases are mixed in remarkably constant proportions up to about 80km.
UNQUOTE

From “The Blue Planet”, Skinner, Porter, Botkin, 2nd Edition,Wiley,ISBN 0471-16114-4
(cost £34.99!)
QUOTE
At very great altitudes, 80km and higher, the composition of dry, aerosol-free air changes a little from what it is at the Earth’s surface; it is depleted in the heavier gases, such as argon and neon, and enriched in the lighter gases such as helium. … The few gas atoms present at the outermost fringe of the atmosphere are mostly atoms of hydrogen and helium that have reached Earth from the Sun.
UNQUOTE

So I can justify my remark with three references. What can you bring to the party?


Lastly climate change hotspots… nuff said.

http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=0~95.273438&s...93FC6ECA7DF64076!578

quote:

Originally posted by Lost in Kate Winslet:

Whereabouts?

This is the problem with cut and paste merchants - they just don't understand what they are quoting.[/QUOTE]

Still whereabouts.

quote:

Still whereabouts.

realprimate, what LKW has misunderstood is that the even distribution of CO2 as compared with H2O is not at odds with stratospheric cooling.

Like many such similar arguments, some people have a difficulty with logic. Try these statements:

1. CO2 causes surface warming, therefore it cannot cause stratospheric cooling.
2. CO2 rises after warming, therefore it can't cause warming.
3. There is no evidence that an MWP did not exist, therefore it must have existed.
4. Climate has always changed before man, therefore it is impossible for man to cause climate change.
5. No extreme event can be attributed to GW, therefore GW does not cause any extreme events.

Normally once you have wasted a lot of time and effort explaining the misunderstanding, the person says something like "Yes, but that is not the key point, the key point is [something completely different]"

Ah yes realprimate,

But if you take the second derivative of the rate of change in cosmic rays, compare with the amount of low level tropical cloudiness minus the amount of high level subtropical cloudiness multiplied by the ratio of tea to coffee consumption, you'll find that the fit is excellent.

Maybe we could just apply Koch's postulates to the problem:

1. CO2 must be found in all planets suffering from GW, but not in healthy planets.
2. The CO2 must be isolated from a planet suffering from GW and grown in pure culture.
3. The cultured CO2 should cause GW when introduced into a healthy planet.
4. The CO2 must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental planet and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.

Anyone have any spare planets to hand?

RealPrimate

quote:

I think this is the link:-

http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/clmx/main.htm

Looks to me that from 1998 to 2006 the Cosmic ray plot follows the temperature plot. So if Cosmic rays do induce cooling then a fall in the Cosmic ray plot means that something else is causing the global average temperature not to rise since 1998.