Comments on: The Studies Do No Such Thing http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/10/the-studies-do.html Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:51:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: Bernd Felsche http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/10/the-studies-do.html/comment-page-1#comment-92 Bernd Felsche Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:03:05 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2007/10/the-studies-do.html#comment-92 <p>After seeing the 2.2% figure a couple of days ago, I wondred 2.2% of what? Humidity varies almost 10-fold some days, in a number of places. (e.g. monsoonal showers hitting the Australian outback) Even a "normal" day can see 5-fold (500%) over large land areas of the globe.</p> <p>I pointed out on Nature's website that their published "variation" of 0.07 g/kg is completely insignificant. Noise.</p> <p>The moisture content of air typically varies between as little as 4 g H2O per kg of dry air to reach perhaps 35 to 40 g/kg on the same hot, humid day. These are figures that airconditioning and cooling tower Engineers deal with every day.</p> <p>To call 0.07 g/kg a significant rise in that perspective is delusional insanity. Such a rise cannot even be measured in practice; especially not on a large ("global") scale.</p> <p>Such a "rise", if it were detectable, would make no appreciable difference to the climate system. The change in enthalphy is trivial. There is no way it'd make a measureable or significant difference.</p> After seeing the 2.2% figure a couple of days ago, I wondred 2.2% of what? Humidity varies almost 10-fold some days, in a number of places. (e.g. monsoonal showers hitting the Australian outback) Even a “normal” day can see 5-fold (500%) over large land areas of the globe.

I pointed out on Nature’s website that their published “variation” of 0.07 g/kg is completely insignificant. Noise.

The moisture content of air typically varies between as little as 4 g H2O per kg of dry air to reach perhaps 35 to 40 g/kg on the same hot, humid day. These are figures that airconditioning and cooling tower Engineers deal with every day.

To call 0.07 g/kg a significant rise in that perspective is delusional insanity. Such a rise cannot even be measured in practice; especially not on a large (“global”) scale.

Such a “rise”, if it were detectable, would make no appreciable difference to the climate system. The change in enthalphy is trivial. There is no way it’d make a measureable or significant difference.

]]> By: dicentra http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/10/the-studies-do.html/comment-page-1#comment-91 dicentra Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:25:34 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2007/10/the-studies-do.html#comment-91 <p>The other "hard and fast" argument that seems to remain is that "we know the physical properties of CO2, and it's definitely a greenhouse gas."</p> <p>In other news, water is wet.</p> The other “hard and fast” argument that seems to remain is that “we know the physical properties of CO2, and it’s definitely a greenhouse gas.”

In other news, water is wet.

]]> By: Larry Sheldon http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/10/the-studies-do.html/comment-page-1#comment-90 Larry Sheldon Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:56:39 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2007/10/the-studies-do.html#comment-90 <p>"all the natural causes the current state of the science knows about"</p> <p>I am not a professional scientist, although I could make some claim to being an amateur....</p> <p>But that may not be relevant. Among the things I do do is read some, and when I moved to Nebraska some years ago (after living on the Left coast most of my 50-odd years) I read up a little about the Great Plains and one of the things that struck me (even before I read it explicitly somewhere) was that as the immigrants moved west, the climate changed apparently in concert with plowing under the prairies and irrigating farmland.</p> <p>So I'm not sure the AGW folks even use _all of "the natural causes the current state of the science knows about".</p> <p>And in the 18 or so years that we have lived here, the city (which extended to the low 100 blocks from the river) has moved out to the middle 200's and it seems to me (anecdotally) that things have changed as you move west from the river.</p> <p>I have not tried to mount any kind of a scholarly reading of the records, and I'm not sure how to do that since the NOAA office has apparently moved west faster than the city limits did (I think it was in an old NIKE base on 72nd when we moved here, now "OMA" is clear out in Valley--what is that 400th? I don't know.<br /> </p> “all the natural causes the current state of the science knows about”

I am not a professional scientist, although I could make some claim to being an amateur….

But that may not be relevant. Among the things I do do is read some, and when I moved to Nebraska some years ago (after living on the Left coast most of my 50-odd years) I read up a little about the Great Plains and one of the things that struck me (even before I read it explicitly somewhere) was that as the immigrants moved west, the climate changed apparently in concert with plowing under the prairies and irrigating farmland.

So I’m not sure the AGW folks even use _all of “the natural causes the current state of the science knows about”.

And in the 18 or so years that we have lived here, the city (which extended to the low 100 blocks from the river) has moved out to the middle 200′s and it seems to me (anecdotally) that things have changed as you move west from the river.

I have not tried to mount any kind of a scholarly reading of the records, and I’m not sure how to do that since the NOAA office has apparently moved west faster than the city limits did (I think it was in an old NIKE base on 72nd when we moved here, now “OMA” is clear out in Valley–what is that 400th? I don’t know.

]]>