In fact, you have spent far too much time on Harries 2001 -- applying many different dead-wrong analytical frameworks to it, clearly intentionally.
guinganbresil: "You must realize that the comparison to a planet with NO ATMOSPHERE does not accurately respresent the effect of the GHG. A real atmosphere has clouds ..."
Without greenhouse gases, any water vapor precipitates and does not re-vaporize. That is why greenhouse gases like CO₂ are global warming forcing agents and water vapor is only a feedback agent. This is just one of many fatal flaws in your analytical framework.
Another is the assumption that a particular trend must be directly measured in total outgoing longwave radiation. In fact, more subtle analysis is required, of various trends and how they interact physically.
See Trenberth & Fasullo 2009 & Murphy et al, 2009.
But above and beyond all of that, your dishonesty is revealed in your repeated claims of inconsistencies with Anthropogenic Climate Change Theory, by intentional distortion of peer reviewed scientific research which all concludes that the Theory has correctly predicted what they observe in the data.
Unless and until you can get your findings peer reviewed and published, theirs are exactly what they say they are, in the Conclusion a/o Abstract. Given your admissions that you are not a scientist and do not even know how to do proper statistical analysis, your questions about peer reviewed science should all assume your own failure to understand, never errors by anybody else. Which honestly, you already know.
About Climate Change
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment