What Do We Think About Climate Change

what happened to my buddy Guillermo

isn't he willing to post anymore on climate change

(shades eyes with hand and looks from horizon to horizon) nope I don't see him

maybe he decided to get a therapist or something cause apologizing simply isn't his strong suet

oooohhhhh now that might have just hit the mark eh G

yes I forwarded a letter from the university to me on to one of our members I actually do trust and guess what genius

it confirms my alumni status at CU
I'll be awaiting the proper papers so I can prove my status with MIT and then I'll work on WHOI
however
if you are not willing to begin apologizing over this mater quickly and politely then I must ask what is the point of my spending time and money to transfer records just so that some deranged internet flunky can be proven wrong for the hundredth time when I can prove you wrong for free almost any day of the week. My bet is no amount of proof will make one **** bit of difference and you will simply rant on about something else

best of luck with that cause your off your rocker completely at this point in life there G

I actually wish you the best but dam
you need therapy
Geritol maybe


love
B

 

I've seen a copy of a letter to Boston from the University of Colorado at Boulder Alumni Association, confirming his status as an alumnus of the University. So I think we can at least accept his statement that he was there....

Which of course Guillermo won't believe, any more than he believes anything else that contradicts his preconceived notions. He's like a 'Birther' demanding proof that Obama was born in the US - who rejects or ignores any proof he's shown, then demands it all over again.

You know...kind of like AGW deniers? Oh, wait. Guillermo is one of those, isn't he? That explains a lot.

You won't change that sort of mind with proof or facts, folks.

 

Your distracting manoeuvre jointly with your "Mariachi boy" is ridiculous. I have not questioned you have been in Boulder, but what degree you reached there, as well as your allegued universitary scholarships at the MIT and the WOODS institution.

"I started out at WHOI ( Woods Hole Oceanographic institute ) were I studied marine biology and marine resource conservation. After a number of years I went on to study at MIT ( theoretical physics, mostly cosmology theory and optical physics )..."

The fact is that you have not passed up from secondary school at its best.

Show us your "scientific" credentials or shut up, LIAR!

 

you are delusional, at what point did I mention a scholarship

and how could I have attended CU had I not "passed up secondary school" as you so wrongly insist

you invent things in your own twisted imagination and then pretend they are realities that must be proven

you really should consider help cause its becoming obvious that you are simply not dealing with reality

I believe apologies are in order for questioning in so rude a fashion my attendance to CU which has now been established

or is it you who are actually the coward which tends to so often be the case when some fool makes such wildly aggressive comments about others

I will shortly be proving my attendance at MIT followed by proof of attendance at WHOI but if you are unable to man up and apologize for being wrong about my attendance at CU then whats the point eh of proving my attendance at these others

I claimed alumni status in that I attended these universities and I intend to go through the process one by one and prove exactly that to various members of this forum, I have not however revealed my specific degree other than to say I have studied the sciences so your insistence on proof of credentials suggesting I have lied about them is ludicrous in the extreme as will also be easily proven

whats particularly funny is that I had posted links to several web sites I developed one of which "might" have answered your questions but hey
you waited till the day I let them fall to question my education so ya
its way more fun to watch you squirm your way to an apology one wrong statement at a time than it would be prudent to post personal information on the site

as I keep saying

rant on
you only embarrass yourself in the end

love
B

I say it is you who are now proven the liar for having offered an apology if proven wrong and when proven so you then refuse to apologize

I think there are likely more than a few people waiting to see if you are able to man up and actually apologize for being so completely wrong about my background

 

OK, now let's continue with more serious matters, for the sake of the rest of the people in this thread. Let's hope we will not have more idiotic and disrespectful interruptions from the Mariachi Team.

Following my little digression on humidity and water vapor feedback:


About water vapor feedback and tropospheric humidity uncertainties

Positive water vapor feedback is considerd one of the most important of the feedbacks in the climate system. Weak warming caused by more carbon dioxide will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere, which will then amplify the weak warming through water vapor’s role as the atmosphere’s primary greenhouse gas, is the generally accepted model.

Positive water vapor feedback makes sense intuitively. Warmer air masses, on average, contain more water vapor. Warmer air is associated with greater surface evaporation rates, which is the ultimate source of almost all atmospheric water vapor.

And since water vapor is the atmosphere’s main greenhouse gas, it is reasonable to infer that climate warming will be enhanced by increasing water vapor amounts. Water vapor feedback is positive in all of the IPCC climate models.

But just because we find that unusually warm years have more water vapor in both the boundary layer and free troposphere does not mean that the warming caused the moistening. There are a variety of processes (e.g. tropospheric wind shear causing changes in precipitation efficiency) which can in turn alter the balance between evaporation and precipitation, which will then cause warming or cooling as a result of the humidity change – rather than the other way around.

On the other hand there are several uncertainties in the generally asumed water vapor – temperature model, which arise doubts about the positiveness of the feedback. Uncertainties are related to a poor understanding of how precipitation systems change with temperature, as well as with the missing tropospheric “hot spot” in satellite temperature trends. One of the most robust feedback relationships across the IPCC climate models is that those models with the strongest positive water vapor feedback have the strongest negative lapse rate feedback (which is what the “hot spot” would represent). So, the lack of this negative lapse rate feedback signature in the satellite temperature trends could be an indirect indication of little (or even negative) water vapor feedback in nature.

Most atmospheric water vapor resides in the lowest levels, in the ‘turbulent boundary layer’, while the water vapor content of the free troposphere is more closely tied to precipitation processes. But because the outgoing longwave radiation is so much more sensitive to small changes in upper-layer humidity especially at low humidities, it is possible to have a net increase in total integrated water vapor, but negative water vapor feedback from a small decrease in free-tropospheric humidity.


Evidence from Radiosondes

There is evidence that free tropospheric vapor has decreased in recent decades, (e.g. the Paltridge et al., 2009 analysis of the NCEP Reanalysis dataset, which is precisely the data set I used to do my humble digression) despite this being a period of surface warming and humidifying in the boundary layer. The radiosonde data which provide the main input to the NCEP reanalysis has been used to show that the resulting cooling effect of a decrease in vapor has approximately counterbalanced the warming influence of increasing CO2 over the same period of time, leading to a fairly constant infrared opacity (greenhouse effect).

It is of course possible that the observed humidity trends from the NCEP data are simply the result of problems with the instrumentation and operation of the global radiosonde network from which the data are derived, but if there is a spurious drying from a humidity sensor problem it would show up at all altitudes, not just in the free troposphere. The fact that it switches sign right where the turbulent boundary layer pushes up against the free troposphere (around 850 mb, or 5,000 ft.) seems like too much of a coincidence.

 

It's pretty obvious that you're trying to shift the conversation from science to Bostons' credentials and personal character, because you have no answer to his arguments.

Shame on you. I always thought Spaniards were noted for their pride and dignity, but maybe I've been misled.

 

Show us your credentials or shut up, LIAR!

 

Let's go on....

Here the paper mentioned in my previous post 10236:

Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data
Garth Paltridge & Albert Arking & Michael Pook
Received: 21 July 2008 / Accepted: 4 February 2009
# Springer-Verlag 2009
Theor Appl Climatol
DOI 10.1007/s00704-009-0117-x

http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/paltridgearkingpook.pdf


Abstract
The National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) reanalysis data on tropospheric humidity are examined for the period 1973 to 2007. It is accepted that radiosonde-derived humidity data must be treated with great caution, particularly at altitudes above the 500 hPa pressure level. With that caveat, the face-value 35-year trend in zonal-average annual-average specific humidity q is significantly negative at all altitudes above 850 hPa (roughly the top of the convective boundary layer) in the tropics and southern midlatitudes and at altitudes above 600 hPa in the northern midlatitudes. It is significantly positive below 850 hPa in all three zones, as might be expected in a mixed layer with rising temperatures over a moist surface. The results are qualitatively consistent with trends in NCEP atmospheric temperatures (which must also be treated with great caution) that show an increase in the stability of the convective boundary layer as the global temperature has risen over the period. The upper-level negative trends in q are inconsistent with climate-model calculations and are largely (but not completely) inconsistent with satellite data. Water vapor feedback in climate models is positive mainly because of their roughly constant relative humidity (i.e., increasing q) in the mid-to-upper troposphere as the planet warms. Negative trends in q as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2. In this context, it is important to establish what (if any) aspects of the observed trends survive detailed examination of the impact of past changes of radiosonde instrumentation and protocol within the various international networks.

Conclusion
It is of course possible that the observed humidity trends from the NCEP data are simply the result of problems with the instrumentation and operation of the global radiosonde network from which the data are derived. The potential for such problems needs to be examined in detail in an effort rather similar to the effort now devoted to abstracting real surface temperature trends from the face-value data from individual stations of the international meteorological networks. As recommended by Elliot and Gaffen (1991) in their original study of the US radiosonde network, there needs to be a detailed examination of how radiosonde instrumentation, operating procedures, and recording practices of all nations have changed over the years and of how these changes may have impacted on the humidity data. In the meantime, it is important that the trends of water vapor shown by the NCEP data for the middle and upper troposphere should not be “written off” simply on the basis that they are not supported by climate models—or indeed on the basis that they are not supported by the few relevant satellite measurements. There are still many problems associated with satellite retrieval of the humidity information pertaining to a particular level of the atmosphere— particularly in the upper troposphere. Basically, this is because an individual radiometric measurement is a complicated function not only of temperature and humidity (and perhaps of cloud cover because “cloud clearing” algorithms are not perfect), but is also a function of the vertical distribution of those variables over considerable depths of atmosphere. It is difficult to assign a trend in such measurements to an individual cause. Since balloon data is the only alternative source of information on the past behavior of the middle and upper tropospheric humidity and since that behavior is the dominant control on water vapor feedback, it is important that as much information as possible be retrieved from within the “noise” of the potential errors.

 

You are a cretin, Troy, as I had already told you. Your sad and thoughtless intervention to cover Boston's embarrasments here proves it.

 

Guillermo the liar attempts to spread doubt by posting an article that does what, suggest that one study of one area of climate research needs more work

brilliant tactic G

not fooling anyone but this bit attempting to spread doubt has been outed long ago

clearly you did not read that article I posted a short while ago

speaking of which maybe you missed this part as well

read it and weep G cause your not fooling anyone

specially since offering an apology if proven wrong and then refusing to apologize once you have been

it is you who have been proven the liar

 

Tell me which are your "background whatsoever in climate sciences or any sciences for that mater", idiot.

Show us your credentials or shut up, LIAR!

 

I already have Guillermo which is another reason I am beginning to question your grip on reality

you called that one Troy

Guillermo is a blatant liar as has now been proven beyond any reasonable doubt

my educational status is ( as is necessary ) slowly, being proven to those who I feel are trustworthy with such sensitive personal information

his inability to adjust to this new reality is simply further evidence of an unfortunate break from reality

once again I might recommend professional help for you to get over the difficulties you have dealing with being so often wrong in a field were clearly you have little or no training

you did mention that you were an engineer didn't you
not much of the sciences to be found in that curriculum eh

 

Don't avoid the question and tell me which are your "background whatsoever in climate sciences or any sciences for that mater", idiot.

You are the only one who has claimed here to be a "scientist"

Show us your credentials or shut up, LIAR!

 

Well, no. I'm not a cretin. In fact, I'm willing to bet that my performance on any standard IQ test would best yours by double digits. I was accepted by MENSA years ago simply on the basis of my SAT results, because those were the only scores I had handy. And I'm even smarter than they thought I was, because I gave them up as a waste of time after two meetings.

To tell the truth, I've always believed my measured IQ was more a measure of my test-taking skills, due to reading speed and comprehension, than it was of my overall intelligence. Growing up as a bit of a bookworm, with no TV in the house and a father who collected old books, probably skewed the results.

But I have no doubt at all I'm smarter than you. A sure measure of the gap between us is that you have nothing to fall back on but name-calling and insults, when any of your pseudo-scientific claims are challenged. Not to mention that when I cut and paste something, I actually understand what it says.

 

You do not look to me as smart as you think you are, but I'm not going to enter an idiotic debate on who is smarter, if that is what you pretend. You are behaving like a perfect cretin in this thread, "I understand what I read" Troy, and that is not very smarty, I'm afraid.