Senate Report: Gore Lies, Media Biased, Advocates Misrepresent

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/aggi/#figure3

Maybe I missed something but why isn't water vapour in this graph?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse



The table which lists the radiative forcings of different components is right there, dude. CO2 at current levels adds ~1.5 W/m^2. Learn to read.

Which should correspond to about .3 C not the .8 C plus from the instrumentation period.

The rub is that AGW folk believe in stronger feedbacks from water vapor effects (which truly is the wild card IMO). Anti AGW'ers usually think the postive feedbacks for water vapor are neutral at best and potentially negative from albedo effects of cloud cover.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Which should correspond to about .3 C not the .8 C plus from the instrumentation period.

The rub is that AGW folk believe in stronger feedbacks from water vapor effects (which truly is the wild card IMO). Anti AGW'ers usually think the postive feedbacks for water vapor are neutral at best and potentially negative from albedo effects of cloud cover.

Look, I'm not arguing with you about feedback effects. Who the **** knows? I also don't argue with anybody who claims that our knowledge of global temperatures prior to the industrial era is sketchy at best. Our knowledge of CO2 concentrations is a lot better.

I'm just saying that the physics behind our direct forcing is pretty simple (and thus solid).

Just because you've got a healthy degree of skepticism (as I do) doesn't mean that you should throw your arms up in the air and say "we don't know anything!!!!". Or even worse, repeat pseudoscientific claims about CO2 not being a greenhouse gas (these claims are usually based on an over-simplified view of the IR spectral properties of CO2).

All I know is that human industry has caused a massive runup in greenhouse gases and that the greenhouse effect is directly linked to it via 19th century physics. Arguing with that is stupid. As for the rest of it, I don't think anybody should claim anything with certainty yet.

[PuddlewatchHQ]

Unfortunately NOAA data is no longer reliable.

All data out of NOAA since 2001 should be considered tainted and useless. Use data from other countries and appropriate NGOs instead.

[KrazyHorse]

Why? Is that some sort of hit against the Bush admin?

[PuddlewatchHQ]

I didn't say that.

However it's become clear that the data out of agencies like NOAA has been carefully parsed and in some cases completely fabricated for some years now. Some of this stuff has been completely made up. As in fictitious.


Edit for further information
Google for an old story involving either CBS news, ABC news, or NBC news, White House, NOAA, EPA, etc.

[Jack_www]

Re: I didn't say that.

Originally posted by PuddlewatchHQ
However it's become clear that the data out of agencies like NOAA has been carefully parsed and in some cases completely fabricated for some years now. Some of this stuff has been completely made up. As in fictitious.


Edit for further information
Google for an old story involving either CBS news, ABC news, or NBC news, White House, NOAA, EPA, etc.

THat so call news story of yours would be almost impossible to find with just that information. How do you know the information is faked?

[PuddlewatchHQ]

The story was carried by the major news networks.

In addition it was aired in prime time. This is a matter of public record. When I say aired in prime time I mean on Television in the United States. This was not some story only written up for an obscure blog on the net. If you can't find the pertinent information then you're obviously not looking hard enough.

[Jack_www]

Re: The story was carried by the major news networks.

Originally posted by PuddlewatchHQ
In addition it was aired in prime time. This is a matter of public record. When I say aired in prime time I mean on Television in the United States. This was not some story only written up for an obscure blog on the net. If you can't find the pertinent information then you're obviously not looking hard enough.

That would be more easier to find, when you just say go look for a story about NOAA, and maybe NBC or ABC or the whitehouse, that is like trying to find a needle in a hay stack.

[Ramo]

You also have to search for ZOG, fluoridation, and commienazis. That narrows down the searches somewhat.

[Zkribbler]

I notice a pattern emerging here.

When the eco-hohums ask for links or citations, they are given them, and then reject the information there, asserting ipsa dixit that the source and/or information is tainted, not believable, untrustworthy, whatever.

But when the eco-hohums are asked for links or citations, their response is "It's a well known fact; go find it yourself!"

My conclusion: They have so made up their minds, they cannot deal with the facts...or even the ambiguities.

We should mock them.

Mock, mock, mock.

[KrazyHorse]

Actually, puddlewatch is not a "ecohohum" as you put it.

He's on the other side, if his previous posts are any guide.

The lesson you should take from this is that people who don't listen to "respectable" science are tools.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


Maybe I missed something but why isn't water vapour in this graph?

Because there is some confusion in terminology.

Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, because it displays radiative forcing.

It is not, however, under direct control of human beings. We don't output water vapour causing the concentration of water vapour to rise; water vapour has a lifetime in atmosphere of only a couple of days, meaning that unless something else changes the balance is restored fairly quickly (at any time there's only a couple of days worth of human-made water vapour in the air; it doesn't have time to build up). The major method to alter concentration of water vapour is via temperature increase. That way, even if you maintain the same relative humidity you get more water vapour per unit volume. The other "greenhouse gases" are mainly forced directly by human production and emission (the climate of course responds to this and may amplify or reduce the effect we have, depending on the type of feedback). Water vapour is therefore often excluded from such charts.

[Dinner]

So is everyone done laughing at the hackjob political report in the OP?

[Odin]

Re: I didn't say that.

Originally posted by PuddlewatchHQ
However it's become clear that the data out of agencies like NOAA has been carefully parsed and in some cases completely fabricated for some years now. Some of this stuff has been completely made up. As in fictitious.


Edit for further information
Google for an old story involving either CBS news, ABC news, or NBC news, White House, NOAA, EPA, etc.

I've read several news stories stating that the Bush Administration is engaging in censorship, prventing government enviromental and science agencies from reporting the facts if those facts don't show what Denialists want to see. If supressing facts isn't proof that the Denialists are liars I don't know what is. It makes a mockery of the claim made by denialists that we don't have enough data tp prove that GW is cased by human activity, if they really believed that they wouldn't be trying to supress the data.