|
Post by dmapel on Jun 26, 2009 17:07:09 GMT
steve: "Now why did that spacecraft crash into Mars again?" Did NASA make a mistake? How unusual. You are correct on the conversion of F to C. However, you have not addressed the question: Why the big difference in diurnal temps in desert regions? Here is an explanation from wikipedia, that has not yet been spotted by the warmista censors, or they would have "corrected" the entry: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert"Deserts take up about one third (33 percent) of the Earth's land surface.[1] Hot deserts usually have a large diurnal and seasonal temperature range, with high daytime temperatures, and low nighttime temperatures (due to extremely low humidity). In hot deserts the temperature in the daytime can reach 45 °C/113 °F or higher in the summer, and dip to 0 °C/32°F or lower in the winter. Water acts to trap infrared radiation from both the sun and the ground, and dry desert air is incapable of blocking sunlight during the day or trapping heat during the night. Thus, during daylight most of the sun's heat reaches the ground, and as soon as the sun sets the desert cools quickly by radiating its heat into space. Urban areas in deserts lack large (more than 14 °C/25 °F) daily temperature variations, partially due to the urban heat island effect." It's the water, again.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 26, 2009 17:07:15 GMT
It doesn't only revolve around CO2. times 20. Is that enough times? What else can explain ocean warming? Clouds, winds, aerosol, dust and greenhouse gas levels, solar, humidity, ocean circulation patterns, sea surface temperatures, climate modes (PDO, ENSO etc.), as well as the relative positions in their cycles, could all be factors to be considered.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 26, 2009 17:09:28 GMT
steve: It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2.
Is that enough times? "
Have you told soclod?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 26, 2009 17:28:47 GMT
steve: "Now why did that spacecraft crash into Mars again?" Did NASA make a mistake? How unusual. Let me guess. They were forced to tender the work to, mostly, the companies that charged the least, and one of the companies that won did so because they'd not upgraded from using inch-pounds per square furlongs. That's realclimate boilerplate so I can't argue with that (not that I've ever done so). www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 26, 2009 17:30:49 GMT
steve: It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. It doesn't only revolve around CO2. Is that enough times? " Have you told soclod? Socold is brighter (and more mature) than you, so he already knows.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 26, 2009 20:12:40 GMT
Water acts to trap infrared radiation from both the sun and the ground, and dry desert air is incapable of blocking sunlight during the day or trapping heat during the night. Thus, during daylight most of the sun's heat reaches the ground, and as soon as the sun sets the desert cools quickly by radiating its heat into space
Do you see any mention of all that back-radiating CO2 there steve? The obvious implication is that CO2 is insignificant. That doesn't match the realclimate boilerplate at all. And to state that you have not argued with that is a lie steve.
You and your fellow naive warmista pals, like soclod, have staked out a position on what you imagine to be the high ground of settled science and moral certitude. Oh please keep up the yammering and save us all from burning up! And don't forget to raise the minimum wage! A thousand dollars an hour would be a nice living wage, that almost everybody would be happy with.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 26, 2009 20:18:14 GMT
Water acts to trap infrared radiation from both the sun and the ground, and dry desert air is incapable of blocking sunlight during the day or trapping heat during the night. Thus, during daylight most of the sun's heat reaches the ground, and as soon as the sun sets the desert cools quickly by radiating its heat into spaceDo you see any mention of all that back-radiating CO2 there steve? The obvious implication is that CO2 is insignificant. So the secondary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere has no effect because if you remove the primary greenhouse gas it gets colder?
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 26, 2009 22:25:59 GMT
soclod: "So the secondary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere has no effect because if you remove the primary greenhouse gas it gets colder?
Funny question. Thanks.
Right now a little farce is playing out in Washington D.C., that very well illustrates the importance of the secondary greenhouse gas. Although the political party controlled by the hysterical catastrophic AGW theocracy has a sizable majority in the U.S House of Representatives, those feckless clowns are struggling mightily to pass a piece of legislation that will do virtually nothing to reduce CO2 emissions. And if it passes the House, it will be rejected by the Senate. But please keep yammering on about the effect of the secondary greenhouse gas. It is very amusing.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 27, 2009 3:05:16 GMT
Yippeeee! It passed with one vote to spare! If this beauty can sneak by the Senate, millions of jobs will be created...in China!
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 27, 2009 11:18:06 GMT
Water acts to trap infrared radiation from both the sun and the ground, and dry desert air is incapable of blocking sunlight during the day or trapping heat during the night. Thus, during daylight most of the sun's heat reaches the ground, and as soon as the sun sets the desert cools quickly by radiating its heat into spaceDo you see any mention of all that back-radiating CO2 there steve? The obvious implication is that CO2 is insignificant. That doesn't match the realclimate boilerplate at all. And to state that you have not argued with that is a lie steve. Do you get all your science from Wikipedia and Yahoo?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 27, 2009 15:40:28 GMT
I don't know how you fellows and fine women put part of a post in your message and reply to it. Could you explain that to me please?
The legislation passed the house, but I do believe it will die in the Senate. It was a 1st attempt and a sorry atempt at that.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 27, 2009 16:37:53 GMT
I don't know how you fellows and fine women put part of a post in your message and reply to it. Could you explain that to me please? The legislation passed the house, but I do believe it will die in the Senate. It was a 1st attempt and a sorry atempt at that. I don't know if anybody has an easier way. But I push the quote button which embeds the quoting in the reply window. Then I subtract out the part of the post that is clutter to the part of the quote I want to respond to. To create two parts I copy the html and repeat it, being careful to make sure you have the "close quote" html or I retype the close quote if it was a long post so I don't have to erase a lot a second time.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 27, 2009 16:52:57 GMT
I don't know how you fellows and fine women put part of a post in your message and reply to it. Could you explain that to me please? The legislation passed the house, but I do believe it will die in the Senate. It was a 1st attempt and a sorry atempt at that. I don't know if anybody has an easier way. But I push the quote button which embeds the quoting in the reply window. Then I subtract out the part of the post that is clutter to the part of the quote I want to respond to. To create two parts I copy the html and repeat it, being careful to make sure you have the "close quote" html or I retype the close quote if it was a long post so I don't have to erase a lot a second time. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 27, 2009 17:00:21 GMT
little steve: "Do you get all your science from Wikipedia and Yahoo?"
No, I just selected those two particular references to piss you off. Neither one is particularly scientific, or even correct in the details, but then this is not a scientific issue anymore.
Where do you get your economics from? You are exceptionally ignorant on that subject.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 28, 2009 12:25:32 GMT
little steve: "Do you get all your science from Wikipedia and Yahoo?" No, I just selected those two particular references to piss you off. Neither one is particularly scientific, or even correct in the details, but then this is not a scientific issue anymore. Where do you get your economics from? You are exceptionally ignorant on that subject. You're exceptionally ignorant full stop, my dear boy. But I usually let it by. You didn't select those references to piss me off. You selected them because I challenged you to answer the question you were implying you knew the answer to (the diurnal cycle in the Sahara) and you couldn't find a decent answer. By the way. Do *you* have any economics knowledge? All your responses have so far been "the sky will fall if this bill is passed", "that's idiotic" and "you're ignorant". Not a lot to go on I don't claim to be an expert, but I've ignored the advice of the "experts" most of my life so far and as a result I'm doing quite nicely
|
|