I wouldn’t normally pick on grammatical errors or spelling mistakes in blogs because we’ve all done it. I’ve often had to go through a post and clean up the odd error or two. I’m also certain I’ve missed a few here and there. We’re all only human after all. That said, this next screenshot is not meant to be poking fun at Geoffrey Brown, the official blogger for the Climate Sceptics Party. It’s a service announcement for his benefit. I know Geoffrey visits here occasionally and since I’m blocked from expressing my freedom of speech at his blog, I’m left with no alternative but to highlight his error here. Geoffrey, if you want to be taken seriously, you might want to fix up this headline.
Wow!
Authors of the paper, comments
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3006#.UDRfUdYgeSo
How is this for a magnitute (sic)
http://iwantsomeproof.com/extimg/sia_2.png
The scales of those magnitute is large
It seems you are in need of a science lesson. The jet streams are moving nearer the Equator as the World cools. This has given the coldest winter in 50 years to S. Africa , S. America and Australia. We will probably get a viciously cold winter too. The N. Atlantic has been cooling for 8 years: http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/figure-102.png
Those who push the CO2-AGW hypothesis claim non-existent positive feedback, a clever trick in the models no-one picked until recently. They exaggerate IR absorption by a factor of 5 to get extra oceanic evaporation. The heat transfer assumption** to achieve this is obviously wrong. Average temperature is corrected by exaggerated cloud cooling [up to 70 W/m^2 extra over reality]..
The reality is that Total Precipitable Water in the Global atmosphere has been falling for 14 years. This and the total absence of experimental evidence of any CO2-AGW, precluded by basic physics known for 60 years***, means we have been subjected to a massive, government-sponsored fraud.
**The Trenberth Energy budget assumes the Earth’s surface emits IR as if it were a black body in a vacuum. The reality is that convection and radiation are coupled; Engineers calculate a combined heat transfer coefficient – e.g. see McAdam’s ‘Heat Transfer’.
***http://notrickszone.com/2012/08/07/epic-warmist-fail-modtran-doubling-co2-will-do-nothing-to-increase-long-wave-radiation-from-sky/
These data were measured in the late 1940s by Hottell at MIT and are routinely used to design metallurgical heat treatment processes. The IPCC has completely ignored them, perhaps because they show that above 10% RH there can be no CO2-AGW.
Alec
It seems you are in need of a blog rules lesson. Please see Rule 6.
That aside. By offering Bob I don’t believe in peer review Tisdale’s blog and notrickzone as references you either don’t understand the importance of peer review or don’t accept it. Judging by your assertion that there is a “massive, government-sponsored fraud” you probably think of peer review as “pal review”. That makes you a conspiracy theorist. Tell me something, this “fraud”, is it global? I mean, are are the Chinese, Russian, Pakistani and Indian scientists in on it too?
Sorry, just thought you should realise many independent scientists like me have checked climate science and have shown the heat generation and transfer is based on 6 items of provably incorrect physics.
Ultimately, the whole subject was derailed by the Trenberth Energy Budget, based on measuring ‘back radiation by single pyrgeometers. Unfortunately, that signal is an artefact, the temperature radiation field in the viewing angle, not a real energy flux**. So the ‘budget’ is a fallacy and because model predictions are based on knowingly unrealistic estimates of cloud albedo, they are clearly designed to deceive.
**The manufacturers state you need two instruments to measure net energy flux: http://www.kippzonen.com/?product/16132/CGR+3.aspx
So, given that you call yourself a scientist, I’ll assume you have qualifications, in which case you would also understand the importance of subjecting your findings to peer review, that is, if you want to be taken seriously. It’s a major claim you’re making and if correct, will overturn decades of research by some of the top minds in the field. That would be worthy of Geophysical Research Letters, Nature or Science. So, which journal will you be submitting to? I’ll give you a tip though, you’ll find it difficult to publish if you use terms like “provably incorrect physics” It’s a bit unscientific. Just thought you should know that.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Bob Tisdale hahahahahahahahaahahaha cooling hahahahahahahahahahAtmospheric water vapor falling hahahahahahah No trickszone hahahahahahahah
Reading this comment at TCS I doubt that any of geoff’s followers would even notice,
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/contact-your-pm.html
Targets painted on their heads?
Got to watch out for those goose stepping communists,