I've been having some discussions with a colleague who has never thought too hard about anthropogenic global warming.
Anyway, he says there must be some work/some research results that have been published in reputable scientific journals that:
1. examine the causal link between anthropogenic carbon dioxide and warming, and
2. quantify the extent of the warming from anthropogenic carbon dioxide.
What he really want is links to research papers or citations to research papers.
Graeme Bird, be _very_ careful when you accuse someone of being a liar. I've had interaction with Michael Duffy around the issue of intellectual integrity, and he comes up short. Also, Dr Marohasy has made this same request, in the same little-girl tone, a number of times in the past and been given the references she asked for. She's wilfully ignorant.
Graeme Bird.
I see no reason to retract anything I have said on this thread, and so it all stands: my comments on the immunology of HIV, my capacity to thus comment, and my observations of your behaviour.
Everything.
Except perhaps that your mother must be proud - after careful consideration I can see that she might not actually be that proud of her son...
Just come up with the evidence or make the retraction Bernard.
testing
Graeme Bird.
I reckon you'd have to wear a bib, what with all of your foaming at the mouth. You really need to cool down. I suggest dunking your head three times in a bucket of ice-cold water, and lifting it out twice.
Your response to my simple observation that HIV DOES cause AIDS, and that to deny this fact because one is ignorant of fundamental immunology, is completely bizarre, and I care not a whit that you tried to call my refutation of Robertson's garbage conspiracy theory 'arrogance'. If setting a buffoon like him straight is arrogance, so be it. Any rational person would recognise such a correction as a justifiable calling-out of an idiot's ignorance.
And contrary to your rant, I am indeed in a position to lecture someone like Robertson on matters immunological.
Get over it.
As a person with three teriary qualifications in science, and a PhD about to join the current trio testamures already in the bottom drawer, I would humbly suggest that I know rather more than 'jack shit' about science.
However, it is patently obvious to any and all who read your vituperous sprays that you yourself are perhaps rather less benefited of a basic scientific education.
You are an expert potty-mouth though. Your mother must be so proud.
"BTW when are you handing out the cash Duffy? Expect to here an annoucement on CP this evening. Perhaps you can donate to the "Human Fund", I think George Costanza set it up."
LISTEN YOU MORON. SHOW UP WITH THE EVIDENCE.
Lets have it now.
Its just terrible that we have to be walking around and breathing the same air with people as stupid as this fellow Patrick.
"For the rest of us, I'd suggest starting with a textbook."
No thats just so idiotic. The problem isn't with McIntyre its with you. The problem isn't with definitions its with the total lack of evidence.
Can I request that you stop being an idiot?
If thats not to much to ask?
If you were not being an idiot then you could submit a report and I'd tell you if I thought it was to the required standard. But no alarmist line-ball reports exist.
"Graeme; the surface temp of Venus is 750K, 3 times Earth's temp of 287K; Venus's atmosphere is 90 times more massive and 36 times more dense than Earth's; Venus's atmospheric weight creates the temp gradient sufficient to produce its surface temp; just as Earth's atmospheric weight contributes to its surface temp; Venus's atmosphere is effectively impervious to SW so there is no IR to blackbody out from the surface; Craig O'Neill's theories on how Venus got cooked are interesting; he postulates episodic overturn with accompanying volcanic activity producing an atmosphere devoid of water; it annoys me that Venus is continually trundled out by AGW obscurantists to justify their apocalyptic predictions; there is no similarity at all; but the presence of CO2 as a liquid on Venus clearly establishs that CO2 is not an agent of heating or greenhouse, just as the cold atmosphere of Mars with its 95% CO2 content also does."
Right. That all sounds good. I've got nothing much to add to it. Except that you say that Venus' atmosphere is impervious to Shortwave radiation right? But that surely is the same as Venus' atmosphere deftly blocking that radiation surely?
So there would have to be some sort of gas-colour adjustment right?
Look you might disagree but tell me where I'm coming off the beam.
I didn't know about anyones theory of the Venus cooking. I just looked at the situation of the super-rotation of the clouds. The bloke who started the other thread spoke of "overturning". I think this is actually the key. I was calling it TUNNELING-UNDER.
I am making the claim that heat budgets can build particularly when the hot substance, which would normally rise, is forced to tunnel back under.
So I suspect there is this tunneling under going on under the surface of Venus. Beneath the first bank of clouds, between two banks of clouds and so forth.
So I don't see it as a radiative heat balance so much as a heat budget thats built up over time. And the "wind" system must be akin to what you would want for a really you-beaut furnace.
You can sort of see it in your minds eye with the backwards rotation, the super-rotation in the same direction with the clouds. And the kind of tunneling under that this would imply with the way the air moved under the clouds.
The picture you had was of a surface that was quite static right? Like right down there on the ground the CO2 is acting like some sort of heavy-liquid? Is that right?
Its as if the heat might as well be underground where your picture is concerned right? I mean its no big deal if the air is the temperature of magma almost. Since we have those sorts of temperatures with those sorts of pressures right here on earth. But we just have them underground right?
Would your thinking be somewhat akin to this?
"Venus's atmospheric weight creates the temp gradient sufficient to produce its surface temp; just as Earth's atmospheric weight contributes to its surface temp"
This actually seems to be the key point to me. This seems so very plausible. How do you explain it to people?
Do you explain that one ought not be prejudiced between magma/liquids/gasses and that the heat will tend to accumulate where the pressures are appropriate and the liquid substance cannot readily turn to gas and take that latent heat away?
I almost wish that no-one had ever even heard of this greenhouse effect jive. So they had to think through everything else that was going on.
Then at some later date they might discover this alleged effect. And it could lead to some minor adjustment after all other considerations were considered.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hey if you are saying that this CO2 is in ACTUAL LIQUID FORM rather than just a compressed gas that acts in somewhat liquid-like ways....... then surely it would be subject to some sort of evaporation. Which would have consequences.
But are you instead saying that this CO2 has liquid-like properties given the intense pressure?
"Graeme,
The current model does indeed think of liquid water (of sufficient depth) as a greenhouse substance, hence the fuss about sea-ice loss. Less sea-ice means more liquid water (of sufficient depth) at the surface."
No it doesn't you are lying. It thinks of water as something separate. A heat sink. A surface with a certain Albedo. Never as a greenhouse substance. Water doesn't come into any bogus "radiative heat balance" equation except insofar as its alleged Albedo is concerned.