Why doesn’t the U.S. have an “English” accent but the blokes in Australia do? Think about it and read about it.

I’ve read that some people in southern Appalachia have accents that are a relic of English in the days before the current English accent evolved to what it is.

It was large enough to elect the contract-with-America congress. And, if energized, it will be large enough to stop cap-and-trade and Copenhagen. The MSM and other moderates have fallen down on the job, so there’s no one else left.

Decreasing LW flux in the H2O band shows that atmospheric water vapour has increased, contrary to what some say.

Atmospheric gases that create greenhouse effect,

* water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
* methane, which contributes 4–9%
* ozone, which contributes 3–7%

People are proposing that it is the increase in CO2 has increased the GH effect, not that CO2 has become the primary driver.

One of the papers I referenced in my previous comment was Evans & Puckrin 2006 “Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate”
http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
As a work of science I’ll admit I find little to recommend it, but the measurements of downward LW flux to the surface that they gathered do provide some intriguing insights. They claim to have determined an increase of 3.5 W/m2 in the downward LW flux of nonH2O GHGs in their observed data versus their modeled projections of pre-industrial levels and this is somewhat justified by their experimental observations. But, if you look at their included charts a more interesting story develops. The total flux for all the nonH2O GHGs for both measured values and modeled data, both contemporaneous and preindustrial, varies from about 16W/m2 in the summer to about 40W/m2 in the winter. The summer value is a dead match for their modeled preindustrial number, which seems to indicate that most all of the 3.5W/m2 in increased GHG flux they found occurred in the winter. Given that I’m in Minnesota and this study was conducted in my near neighbor Canada, I’d have to say that would be an unambiguously beneficial development.
More interesting is the data for Downward LW flux to the surface from H2O. The winter values range from 94W/m2 to 125W/m2 in winter and from 178W/m2 to 256W/m2 in summer. Given the limited scope of the study in both temporal[2 years] and geographic scales it’s hard to extrapolate any global significance from it, but it does seem to me to support the often offered statement that the top four GHGs are H2O, H2O, H2O, and H2O, and that any contribution of CO2 to the “greenhouse effect” is likely to be buried in random variation in H2O.

I didn’t read the entire book at that link, but how the f would they know?

it’s not as if they had representative sampling opinion polls in those days.

There wasn’t even much of a postal service.

Proxies? Of course, maybe they switched a sign someplace, and the study is not inconsistent with 40-45% opposing the revolution, especially with the error bars.

Michael (10:51:41) :

It seams Glen Beck is coming around to logical thinking but you must remember, he is a divide and conker (CFR) Council on Foreign Relations member …

Plse, just go back to infowars.com, Alex Jones is calling … (my perspective anyway, others YMMV)
.
.
.

The Lindzen paper says otherwise, maybe the science isn’t settled?

maybe the data is noisy and ambiguous?

The ERB Satelitte that Prof. Lindzen obtained Data from was later to shown to have faulty data due to not properly compensating for orbit degrading
http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/PRODOCS/erbe/quality_summaries/s10n_wfov/erbe_s10n_wfov_nf_sf_erbs_edition3.html#Cautions

…………………That’s a dangerous remark Curiousgeorge.
What if a situation occurs where the pigs take over power and decide to do you up as a Christmas ham?”

Then that would also settle the matter wouldn’t it? As I’ve said many times before; “The most committed wins.”

We’ll see who is the chef and who is the entree before much longer I think.

“but what seemed to receive much less ink was that just the variations in the LW flux from H2O was often 2-3 times the total of all the others put together, which would seem, at least to me, to make the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary driver of the climate a little hard to justify.”

Decreasing LW flux in the H2O band shows that atmospheric water vapour has increased, contrary to what some say.

Atmospheric gases that create greenhouse effect,

* water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
* methane, which contributes 4–9%
* ozone, which contributes 3–7%

People are proposing that it is the increase in CO2 has increased the GH effect, not that CO2 has become the primary driver.

‘A companion to the American Revolution’
By Jack P. Greene, Jack Richon Pole

http://tinyurl.com/yca8m5a….”

I didn’t read the entire book at that link, but how the f would they know?

it’s not as if they had representative sampling opinion polls in those days.

There wasn’t even much of a postal service.

The Lindzen paper says otherwise, maybe the science isn’t settled?

maybe the data is noisy and ambiguous?

maybe CO2 has no significant effect on climate?

“Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.”

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

Put simply the paper shows a significant decrease in the relevant LW radiation.

This thing is still behind the paywall at Nature and I didn’t think it justified spending 32 bucks to read it. I was able to find several papers of more recent vintage that covered the same ground. The abstracts had extravagant claims for having shown that AGW was proven by their work and they did mostly show the claimed differences in the specific GHG LW fluxes, but what seemed to receive much less ink was that just the variations in the LW flux from H2O was often 2-3 times the total of all the others put together, which would seem, at least to me, to make the claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary driver of the climate a little hard to justify.

Lord Monckton wiped Rayner from his feet, but at the end of the debate, Rayner kept pushing for the precautionary principle approach.
As soon as these guys are in an isolated environment like any UN IPCC meeting, they will continue their own way.

The huge problem we are facing today is that most of the negotiators and politicians believe that the effects of AGW already have arrived and they have to act.

That is why it’s important they are stopped at the political level which is the US Senate for now.

Therefore sign the Instrument of Repudiation her:
http://www.webcommentary.com/signrep.php

“As for Becks segment, consider who watches it. Not the oinkers that’s for sure. And even if they did, you ever try to change a pigs mind? Doesn’t work. Better to do him up as a Christmas ham”.

That’s a dangerous remark Curiousgeorge.
What if a situation occurs where the pigs take over power and decide to do you up as a Christmas ham?

History bears many such occasions and it even happened in “Animal Farm”.
Besides that, the taste of such a Christmas ham must be horrible.