In the generations to come when they look back at the great con job of Anthropogenic Global Warming, they must surely think we were a dumb peoples to fall for such a scam.

Especially when we have proved that there is no hot spot the signature of computer model AGW.

The oceans aren't warming at the alarming rate of the computer model forecasts.

The medieval warm period was deliberatly changed in Manns hockey stick.

Climate gate, etc etc.


Quote:

Thanks To The IPCC, the Public Doesn’t Know Water Vapor Is Most Important Greenhouse Gas Guest Blogger / February 8, 2015         Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball It is not surprising that Roe and Baker explained in a 2007 Science paper that, “The envelope of uncertainty in climate projections has not narrowed appreciably over the past 30 years, despite tremendous increases in computing power, in observations, and in the number of scientists studying the problem.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wasn’t designed to improve the uncertainty. Rather, it was mandated, designed and operated to isolate human effects. The IPCC let the public believe they are examining the entire climate system. From a climate mechanism perspective, they only look at one or two very minor components. It is like describing a car and how it operates by ignoring the engine, transmission, and wheels while focusing on one nut on the right rear wheel. They are only looking at one thread on the nut, human CO2. Read the rest here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/08/thanks-to-the-ipcc-the-public-doesnt-know-water-vapor-is-most-important-greenhouse-gas/

"As recently as Monday Feb 5, 2007, the presumptuous Dr. Tim Ball was still advertising himself as “the first Canadian PhD in climatology.”

Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science.[4] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations.*

*Such as the Koch Brothers.

You do try, Ajax. You do try.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/7vmoge/weathering-fights

Oh, no the evil Koch Bros. ;)

Getting more like the Marx Bros. ;D

Gee, even Desmogblog doesn't have that info on their website.

And if there were a smear to be had they would be in it.

Ajax, I'd like to humbly thank you for pointing out what absolutely no Climate Scientists already knew. The only people in the world that know that elusive fact are school kids.

Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas in the troposphere.

Now tell me this in all your wisdom:

What about the upper troposphere where the the temperature is anything from about minus 40 to minus 70? 

What is the water dewpoint likely to be at that altitude?
What happens to the CO2 concentration at that altitude?
Which is the most important greenhouse gas at that altitude?

Ajax, I think I found one of your old school broadcasts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBaVwwuErmU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBaVwwuErmU

Marla wrote on Jun 7^th, 2015 at 12:25pm:

"As recently as Monday Feb 5, 2007, the presumptuous Dr. Tim Ball was still advertising himself as “the first Canadian PhD in climatology.” Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science.[4] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations.* *Such as the Koch Brothers. You do try, Ajax. You do try. http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/7vmoge/weathering-fights

Arrhhh Miss Muffet your back again with news from the dailyshow about the kotch brothers.

That's really sweet dear, now have you anything of interest to say........................??????? ::) :P :-[ :-X

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 7^th, 2015 at 1:44pm:

Ajax, I'd like to humbly thank you for pointing out what absolutely no Climate Scientists already knew. The only people in the world that know that elusive fact are school kids. Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas in the troposphere. Now tell me this in all your wisdom: What about the upper troposphere where the the temperature is anything from about minus 40 to minus 70?  What is the water dewpoint likely to be at that altitude? What happens to the CO2 concentration at that altitude? Which is the most important greenhouse gas at that altitude? Ajax, I think I found one of your old school broadcasts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBaVwwuErmU

Johno Johno Johno, you really like pushing snake oil on to unsuspecting victims don't you mate.....!!!!!

Like I told you johno most Aussies can smell snake oil from kilometres away mate.......!!!!!

So Johno take your snake oil and stick it where it fits mate......!!!!!!!

What are you going to tell us Johno that more CO2 increases the greenhouse effect......?????


Quote:

The effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas becomes ever more marginal with greater concentration Anthony Watts / May 8, 2013         Team Sisyphus uniform design - back Team Sisyphus uniform design – back (Photo credit: nicomachus) The political target of limiting the effect of Man-made global warming to only +2⁰C can never be attained. Guest essay by Ed Hoskins According to well understood physical parameters, the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentration and from the current level of ~390 ppmv, (parts per million by volume). Accordingly only ~5% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas remains beyond the current level. This inconvenient fact is well understood in the climate science community. It can be accurately modeled using the Modtran program maintained and supported at the University of Chicago. The logarithmic diminution of the effect of CO2 is probably the reason why there was no runaway greenhouse warming from CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppmv. About these ads Remarkably, IPCC Published reports , (TAR3), do actually acknowledge that the effective temperature increase caused by growing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere radically diminishes with increasing concentrations. This information is in their report. It is well disguised for any lay reader, (Chapter 6. Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: section 6.3.4 Total Well-Mixed Greenhouse Gas Forcing Estimate). The diminishing percentage effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas as acknowledged by the IPCC and its concomitant diminishing temperature effect are as follows: increment cumulative 0-100 ppmv: according to David Archibald / Modtran data ~2.22°C ~2.22°C 100-200 ppmv: plants die below this level of CO2 +~0.29°C ~2.51°C 200-300 ppmv: noted as the preindustrial CO2 level +~0.14°C ~2.65°C 300-400 ppmv: current level IPCC attributes all as Man-made +~0.06°C ~2.71°C 400-600 ppmv: business as usual till 2100 +~0.08°C ~2.79°C Read the rest here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-effectiveness-of-co2-as-a-greenhouse-gas-becomes-ever-more-marginal-with-greater-concentration/

Ajax wrote on Jun 7^th, 2015 at 2:24pm:

Johno Johno Johno, you really like pushing snake oil on to unsuspecting victims don't you mate.....!!!!! Like I told you johno most Aussies can smell snake oil from kilometres away mate.......!!!!! So Johno take your snake oil and stick it where it fits mate......!!!!!!! What are you going to tell us Johno that more CO2 increases the greenhouse effect......?????

Ajax, you really amaze me. You tell me all these things that Climatology 101 Students learn about. Radiative forcing is logarithmic! Who'd have thunk?

You mean it's kinda like this? :

ΔF= 5.35 x ln (C/C₀  Wm^-2)

So it's not linear!  Wow what a revelation! No climate scientist in the world knew that amazing fact before you brought it up.

Ajax, this is getting tedious really interesting. Tell me what other examples of elementary climatology you have for our amazement.  You are so smart, you must feel so lonely.

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 7^th, 2015 at 2:40pm:

Ajax wrote on Jun 7th, 2015 at 2:24pm: Johno Johno Johno, you really like pushing snake oil on to unsuspecting victims don't you mate.....!!!!! Like I told you johno most Aussies can smell snake oil from kilometres away mate.......!!!!! So Johno take your snake oil and stick it where it fits mate......!!!!!!! What are you going to tell us Johno that more CO2 increases the greenhouse effect......????? Ajax, you really amaze me. You tell me all these things that Climatology 101 Students learn about. Radiative forcing is logarithmic! Who'd have thunk? You mean it's kinda like this? : ΔF= 5.35 x ln (C/C0  Wm-2) So it's not linear!  Wow what a revelation! No climate scientist in the world knew that amazing fact before you brought it up. Ajax, this is getting tedious really interesting. Tell me what other examples of elementary climatology you have for our amazement.  You are so smart, you must feel so lonely.

Johno I'm not a climatologist like you my friend, and while you maybe able to smooth graphs and molest data as only an alarmist from the religious school of climatology can it doesn't make you one bit smarter than anyone of us on this forum.

You have simply learned some procedures and ofcourse have built some experience on them but this doesn't make smarter than anyone else, especially when you resort to text book explanations.

Give most people enough information about any subject and at the end of the day they will be able to tell if it is real or if someone is taking them for a ride.

You don't have to be an expert like yourself to be able to work that one out. 

Ajax wrote on Jun 7^th, 2015 at 2:52pm:

... while you maybe able to smooth graphs and molest data as only an alarmist from the religious school of climatology can it doesn't make you one bit smarter than anyone of us on this forum.

Your hero Bob Tisdale, the retired car salesman is the one who smoothed the data. Is he an alarmist? You don't even understand the point I was making.



Quote:

You have simply learned some procedures and ofcourse have built some experience on them but this doesn't make smarter than anyone else, especially when you resort to text book explanations.

I know that you are not very good in the book larnin department, but you need to understand that science has nothing to do with rote learning without understanding.


Quote:

Give most people enough information about any subject and at the end of the day they will be able to tell if it is real or if someone is taking them for a ride. You don't have to be an expert like yourself to be able to work that one out.

In your case it's like following a football team. You root for the Denialists, so you only accept information from them.

Conventional scientists you would term as "warmists" or "alarmists". It's a useful way for the purveyors of doubt to prevent you from using real science as a source.

I don't expect you to accept that, because you are too far gone. You are hooked on WUWT, Joanne Nova and the like. If not, prove me wrong.

When sceptics first started talking about 'the pause' the alarmist at first pooh-poohed them. Then the IPCC discovered 'the pause' and 'warmists' have been writing papers to explain 'the pause'.

Now a 'warmist' has come out and said 'the pause' is all wrong; despite a number of datasets showing 'the pause'.

It is the 'warmists' who have instigated the claim 'deniers'.

And now you turn around and claim the moral high ground.

You really are deluded.

Call them for what they are - qualified climate scientists (warmists) versus a mixed rabble including radio presenters, computer scientists, childrens TV presenters, retired car salesmen and mining executives plus one or two professional liars like Lindzen, Singer and Spencer (anything but sceptics). The latter group have previously sold their souls to big tobacco, and now turn their hands to Global climate change denial using exactly the same techniques. 

Like Naomi Oreskes, Historian of Science?

I don't think she has actually done any climate science. She started off as a mining geologist actually. Her claim to fame was the book and film "Merchants of Doubt"

You don't need to be a climatologist to recognise a rogue when you see one.

Ajax wrote on Jun 7^th, 2015 at 2:18pm:

That's really sweet dear, now have you anything of interest to say........................??????? ::) :P :-[ :-X

First off, I'm not your "dear" copy and paste Bat Boy. Two, try to read between your own lines. I have no doubt you are nothing more than a some of big oil shill shoveling propaganda that has been debunked so many times that you are either perpetually ignorant or being paid to post the garbage that you do.

Ajax wrote on Jun 7^th, 2015 at 2:24pm:

Like I told you johno most Aussies can smell snake oil from kilometres away mate.......!!!!!

So...most of your fellow countrymen can smell you from kilometers away. Isn't that what you're really trying to say here, Bat boy?

lee wrote on Jun 7^th, 2015 at 7:37pm:

When sceptics first started talking about 'the pause' the alarmist at first pooh-poohed them. Then the IPCC discovered 'the pause' and 'warmists' have been writing papers to explain 'the pause'. Now a 'warmist' has come out and said 'the pause' is all wrong; despite a number of datasets showing 'the pause'. It is the 'warmists' who have instigated the claim 'deniers'. And now you turn around and claim the moral high ground. You really are deluded.

Deluded is not knowing water is in a cycle yet carbon dioxide is being mechanically injected into the system... or is lee just playing pretend  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o ?

Ajax wrote on Jun 7^th, 2015 at 11:58am:

In the generations to come when they look back at the great con job of Anthropogenic Global Warming, they must surely think we were a dumb peoples to fall for such a scam. Especially when we have proved that there is no hot spot the signature of computer model AGW. The oceans aren't warming at the alarming rate of the computer model forecasts. The medieval warm period was deliberatly changed in Manns hockey stick. Climate gate, etc etc. Quote: Thanks To The IPCC, the Public Doesn’t Know Water Vapor Is Most Important Greenhouse Gas Guest Blogger / February 8, 2015         Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball It is not surprising that Roe and Baker explained in a 2007 Science paper that, “The envelope of uncertainty in climate projections has not narrowed appreciably over the past 30 years, despite tremendous increases in computing power, in observations, and in the number of scientists studying the problem.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wasn’t designed to improve the uncertainty. Rather, it was mandated, designed and operated to isolate human effects. The IPCC let the public believe they are examining the entire climate system. From a climate mechanism perspective, they only look at one or two very minor components. It is like describing a car and how it operates by ignoring the engine, transmission, and wheels while focusing on one nut on the right rear wheel. They are only looking at one thread on the nut, human CO2. Read the rest here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/08/thanks-to-the-ipcc-the-public-doesnt-know-water-vapor-is-most-important-greenhouse-gas/

hmmn, so you do agree CO2 increases water vapour  ;D ;D ;D ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 1:04am:

Ajax wrote on Jun 7th, 2015 at 11:58am: In the generations to come when they look back at the great con job of Anthropogenic Global Warming, they must surely think we were a dumb peoples to fall for such a scam. Especially when we have proved that there is no hot spot the signature of computer model AGW. The oceans aren't warming at the alarming rate of the computer model forecasts. The medieval warm period was deliberatly changed in Manns hockey stick. Climate gate, etc etc. Quote: Thanks To The IPCC, the Public Doesn’t Know Water Vapor Is Most Important Greenhouse Gas Guest Blogger / February 8, 2015         Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball It is not surprising that Roe and Baker explained in a 2007 Science paper that, “The envelope of uncertainty in climate projections has not narrowed appreciably over the past 30 years, despite tremendous increases in computing power, in observations, and in the number of scientists studying the problem.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wasn’t designed to improve the uncertainty. Rather, it was mandated, designed and operated to isolate human effects. The IPCC let the public believe they are examining the entire climate system. From a climate mechanism perspective, they only look at one or two very minor components. It is like describing a car and how it operates by ignoring the engine, transmission, and wheels while focusing on one nut on the right rear wheel. They are only looking at one thread on the nut, human CO2. Read the rest here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/08/thanks-to-the-ipcc-the-public-doesnt-know-water-vapor-is-most-important-greenhouse-gas/ hmmn, so you do agree CO2 increases water vapour  ;D ;D ;D ;D

It contributes.....yes.

It dictates only in the computer models of the IPCC.....!!!!!

More from Anthony Watts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0-gX7aUKk

Anthony Watts tells it like it is.

No brainwashing involved........!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfnddMpzPsM

Anthony Watts tells it like he's paid to do.

Ajax wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 10:03am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 8th, 2015 at 1:04am: Ajax wrote on Jun 7th, 2015 at 11:58am: In the generations to come when they look back at the great con job of Anthropogenic Global Warming, they must surely think we were a dumb peoples to fall for such a scam. Especially when we have proved that there is no hot spot the signature of computer model AGW. The oceans aren't warming at the alarming rate of the computer model forecasts. The medieval warm period was deliberatly changed in Manns hockey stick. Climate gate, etc etc. Quote: Thanks To The IPCC, the Public Doesn’t Know Water Vapor Is Most Important Greenhouse Gas Guest Blogger / February 8, 2015         Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball It is not surprising that Roe and Baker explained in a 2007 Science paper that, “The envelope of uncertainty in climate projections has not narrowed appreciably over the past 30 years, despite tremendous increases in computing power, in observations, and in the number of scientists studying the problem.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wasn’t designed to improve the uncertainty. Rather, it was mandated, designed and operated to isolate human effects. The IPCC let the public believe they are examining the entire climate system. From a climate mechanism perspective, they only look at one or two very minor components. It is like describing a car and how it operates by ignoring the engine, transmission, and wheels while focusing on one nut on the right rear wheel. They are only looking at one thread on the nut, human CO2. Read the rest here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/08/thanks-to-the-ipcc-the-public-doesnt-know-water-vapor-is-most-important-greenhouse-gas/ hmmn, so you do agree CO2 increases water vapour  ;D ;D ;D ;D It contributes.....yes. It dictates only in the computer models of the IPCC.....!!!!!

What do you mean it contributes? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
:D :D :D :D :D
:D :D :D :D
:D :D :D
:D

;D

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 10:25am:

Anthony Watts tells it like he's paid to do.

Johno its John Cook who tells it like he's paid to, you know that cartoonist from the anything but sceptical science blog, who concocted the 97% of scientists in John Cook et al. What a fraudster and people are still stupid enough to visit his site.

Anthony Watts tells it like it is, there's no hiding of any data whether for or against.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 10:25am:

quote] What do you mean it contributes? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;D

If you had two bob between your ears I might try to explain but its best you suck on your bones hairy nuts.

Anthony Watts loves this video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0-gX7aUKk

http://i57.tinypic.com/x4lld1.jpg

Good. I see you're reading your school books. Tell me when you get to Chapter 2.

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 10:55am:

Good. I see you're reading your school books. Tell me when you get to Chapter 2.

Better than being brainwashed by the oligarchy who play on your sympathy for the environment (has there ever been a better call to arms to create foot soldiers) by feeding you pseudo science form a political group that is run by bankers.

Run by bankers? Really?

Anything else?

Ajax wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 10:33am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 8th, 2015 at 10:25am: quote] What do you mean it contributes? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;D If you had two bob between your ears I might try to explain but its best you suck on your bones hairy nuts.

Ajax can't accept water vapour is wholly dependant upon CO2 !!

;) ;) ;) ;)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 8^th, 2015 at 11:43am:

Ajax wrote on Jun 8th, 2015 at 10:33am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 8th, 2015 at 10:25am: quote] What do you mean it contributes? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;D If you had two bob between your ears I might try to explain but its best you suck on your bones hairy nuts. Ajax can't accept water vapour is wholly dependant upon CO2 !! ;) ;) ;) ;)

Your brain is so so so so so so so small......!!!

Ajax wrote on Jun 13^th, 2015 at 2:37pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 8th, 2015 at 11:43am: Ajax wrote on Jun 8th, 2015 at 10:33am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 8th, 2015 at 10:25am: quote] What do you mean it contributes? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ;D If you had two bob between your ears I might try to explain but its best you suck on your bones hairy nuts. Ajax can't accept water vapour is wholly dependant upon CO2 !! ;) ;) ;) ;) Your brain is so so so so so so so small......!!!

What would happen to water vapour if the earth had no CO2?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 14^th, 2015 at 10:00am:

What would happen to water vapour if the earth had no CO2?

hey moron if there was no CO2 there would be no plants and that means there would be no herbivores and that means there would be no carnivores, put your three heads together to work it out.

As for water vapour sure it will be affected a LITTLE but imo it would just about be the same.

Lets see your saying if we took away 0.04% of the atmosphere how would that effect the other %99.96.

Not very much imo.

And from that 0.04% of total CO2 in our atmosphere, only 4% is manmade the rest is natural and comes from the ecosystems.

Total CO2 in our atmosphere = 0.0004

That is made up of 96% natural CO2 and 4% manmade CO2.

Natural CO2 = 96% of 0.0004 = 0.000384 Natural CO2

Manmade CO2 = 4% of 0.0004 = 0.000016 Manmade CO2

negligible is the word you're looking for you smelly K9.

Ajax wrote on Jun 20^th, 2015 at 10:53am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jun 14th, 2015 at 10:00am: What would happen to water vapour if the earth had no CO2? hey nice person if there was no CO2 there would be no plants and that means there would be no herbivores and that means there would be no carnivores, put your three heads together to work it out. As for water vapour sure it will be affected a LITTLE but imo it would just about be the same. Lets see your saying if we took away 0.04% of the atmosphere how would that effect the other %99.96. Not very much imo. And from that 0.04% of total CO2 in our atmosphere, only 4% is manmade the rest is natural and comes from the ecosystems. Total CO2 in our atmosphere = 0.0004 That is made up of 96% natural CO2 and 4% manmade CO2. Natural CO2 = 96% of 0.0004 = 0.000384 Natural CO2 Manmade CO2 = 4% of 0.0004 = 0.000016 Manmade CO2 negligible is the word you're looking for you smelly K9.

Something tells me this guy is for super cereal  :-? :-?