Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 9^th, 2017 at 8:04pm:



You mean like Tom Karl and the karlisation of sea surface temperatures? Had a significance of 0.1 when the norm is 0.01 to 0.05, if good.

Like Zeke Hausfather's paper on sea surface temperture. Where he admits running the water through ships engine rooms warms the water; but the pristine buoy data puts a "cold bias" on the temperatures; so those need to be increased.

You take all these papers at face value, including Harries et al 2001, when it showed absolutely no temperature increase.

Scientists are supposed to be sceptical. You have shown yourself not to be.

If I am rude to you; good. It MAY lead you to examine those works you eschew.

You have NEVER admitted you were in error; and you have been. Now that is ignorance.

Have fun.

I'm thinking Monk is talking from the bottom of an Oak barrel somewhere.

Oh dear, well at least he didn't drown eh.

Hope this helps Monk...

This one is pretty...
pretty interesting.
http://imgur.com/QzV7x8E

TheFunPolice wrote on Jul 10^th, 2017 at 1:54pm:



Well wiki seems to think so; so it must be true.

"Water vapor, water vapour or aqueous vapor is the gaseous phase of water."

lol
and I thought Monk had problems...
Quote:


Now I have made that point before, but Monk ignored it or didn't understand it.  So I'm guessing there is no hope for Choo-choo.

lee wrote on Jul 9^th, 2017 at 11:54am:


Title of the Harries et al paper:
Quote:

Increases in greenhouse forcing

Can you read that, Lees? I can’t make it bigger.

So your quick, desperate glance at the Y axis has mislead you badly, hasn’t it? Or maybe not, you will twist anything so you don’t have to admit that AGW is happening. Poor you.

Let us look in more detail at GHG concentrations and the radiative forcings they cause that are warming the earth.


Source: http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
Reproduced in the SKS website. Lees will make much of this because it means he doesn’t have to think about the actual science.
Caption: Quote:


So we see there is more radiance when looking up at the sky in the IR spectrum, IR reflected back to the surface of the earth by the greenhouse gases. There is no doubt about this. It IS difficult to detect this reflection down of IR because the atmosphere is full of all kinds of EM radiation.

Clearly: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

Somewhat easier to see from satellites.

Let us look at the heat from radiative forcings: