On Aug 21, 12:43*pm, JohnM wrote:
On Aug 20, 1:10*pm, JohnM wrote:



On Aug 20, 11:21*am, JohnM wrote:

On Aug 19, 9:53*pm, Banbufferoverruns wrote:

On Aug 20, 4:24*am, Dawlish wrote:

On Aug 19, 5:15*pm, Catoni wrote:

On Aug 19, 11:58*am, JLS wrote:

On Aug 19, 10:35*am, "
wrote:

On Aug 19, 10:20*am, De **** Pile
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 05:20:45 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock

wrote:
Please see:

The proportions in the atmosphere of nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon
dioxide have been relatively stable since the last ice age, until the
Industrial Revolution. *What happens if these proportions are changed?

What if CO2 is doubled? * Do you know what happens? *Are you willing
to take the risks? *What if it is increased by a mere 35% during the
industrial age because of man-made factors like combustion of fossil
fuels and deforestation? *Does anyone know? *Does anyone give a damn?

Yes,,, they do know.... *most of the increase in temp is from the
first increase in CO².. As you continue to increase CO2, there is less
and less increase in temperature...

* The Law of Diminishing Returns....

* *Take a house in the far north with no insulation. *It's freezing
cold inside during the winter

* You put one layer on insulation in.... you notice a huge
difference.... *very much warmer

* You put a second layer of insulation... *another big improvement,,,
but not as much as the first layer gave you.

* *You put a third layer in... warmer still, *but not as much
difference as the first and second layer gave you

* *By the time you get to the fifth and sixth layers... you can't tell
the difference anymore between layers.... it fails to have any more
measurable effect, and added insulation is a waste of money.

* * From this point... a doubling of CO²... which we are a long...
long.... way from.... *might give us one more degree of warmth
worldwide..A further doubling.... much less increase

* *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminis...idequotedtext-

- Show quoted text -

.........and feedbacks? Come on stupid. Explain the whole picture and
not just the denialist half. Explain how this is changed by the
increasing depth of the atmosphere as CO2 increases close to the
atmosphere's edge where water vapour plays no part. Explain how Beer's
law can't be applied directly in this circumstance. Explain why this
simplified approach you have put forward may never actually occur..
Explain how feedbacks will kick in as temperature rises, that these
feedbacks will be positive and they may well be greater than the
initial rise in temperature caused by CO2. Explain how you can believe
what you've just said, but that you believe none of this.

Why don't you explain why the optical depth has not actually changed
despite the model predictions. We're waiting....

It seems you have actually located what I have been searching for.
Measurements of optical depth in the atmosphere (especially the
mesosphere) both historically and presently.

Would you be so kind as to post the titles here (journal papers, not
websites or blogs) so that I can get up to speed on this important
subject.

Many thanks in advance sarcasm

Still waiting.

I take it that like Bilbo and Denkipoo, you do not have any knowledge
of the existence or otherwise of this phantom data?

Well, I think the deafening silence seems to verify what I claimed all
along. There are no direct measurements over time of optical depth
w.r.t. LWIR in the mesosphere. I'd be very, very happy if anyone can
prove me wrong.

On Aug 22, 5:19 pm, JohnM wrote:
On Aug 21, 12:43 pm, JohnM wrote:



On Aug 20, 1:10 pm, JohnM wrote:

On Aug 20, 11:21 am, JohnM wrote:

On Aug 19, 9:53 pm, Banbufferoverruns wrote:

On Aug 20, 4:24 am, Dawlish wrote:

On Aug 19, 5:15 pm, Catoni wrote:

On Aug 19, 11:58 am, JLS wrote:

On Aug 19, 10:35 am, "
wrote:

On Aug 19, 10:20 am, De **** Pile
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 05:20:45 -0700 (PDT), Roger Coppock

wrote:
Please see:

The proportions in the atmosphere of nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon
dioxide have been relatively stable since the last ice age, until the
Industrial Revolution. What happens if these proportions are changed?

What if CO2 is doubled? Do you know what happens? Are you willing
to take the risks? What if it is increased by a mere 35% during the
industrial age because of man-made factors like combustion of fossil
fuels and deforestation? Does anyone know? Does anyone give a damn?

Yes,,, they do know.... most of the increase in temp is from the
first increase in CO².. As you continue to increase CO2, there is less
and less increase in temperature...

The Law of Diminishing Returns....

Take a house in the far north with no insulation. It's freezing
cold inside during the winter

You put one layer on insulation in.... you notice a huge
difference.... very much warmer

You put a second layer of insulation... another big improvement,,,
but not as much as the first layer gave you.

You put a third layer in... warmer still, but not as much
difference as the first and second layer gave you

By the time you get to the fifth and sixth layers... you can't tell
the difference anymore between layers.... it fails to have any more
measurable effect, and added insulation is a waste of money.

From this point... a doubling of CO²... which we are a long...
long.... way from.... might give us one more degree of warmth
worldwide..A further doubling.... much less increase

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminis...idequotedtext-

- Show quoted text -

.........and feedbacks? Come on stupid. Explain the whole picture and
not just the denialist half. Explain how this is changed by the
increasing depth of the atmosphere as CO2 increases close to the
atmosphere's edge where water vapour plays no part. Explain how Beer's
law can't be applied directly in this circumstance. Explain why this
simplified approach you have put forward may never actually occur.
Explain how feedbacks will kick in as temperature rises, that these
feedbacks will be positive and they may well be greater than the
initial rise in temperature caused by CO2. Explain how you can believe
what you've just said, but that you believe none of this.

Why don't you explain why the optical depth has not actually changed
despite the model predictions. We're waiting....

It seems you have actually located what I have been searching for.
Measurements of optical depth in the atmosphere (especially the
mesosphere) both historically and presently.

Would you be so kind as to post the titles here (journal papers, not
websites or blogs) so that I can get up to speed on this important
subject.

Many thanks in advance sarcasm

Still waiting.

I take it that like Bilbo and Denkipoo, you do not have any knowledge
of the existence or otherwise of this phantom data?

Well, I think the deafening silence seems to verify what I claimed all
along. There are no direct measurements over time of optical depth
w.r.t. LWIR in the mesosphere. I'd be very, very happy if anyone can
prove me wrong.

Well, there we have it. Denkipoo and Bilbo are, as we all know, full
of wind and ****. But it seems Mr Ban Buffero Verruns is built in the
same mould.