Re: OT: Post Turtle

On Jun 24, 3:55 am, James Arthur <dagmargoodb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 22, 6:02 pm, John Larkin





<jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 23:08:40 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan

<jkir...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 12:13:35 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>

For a question such as yours, coming from you at your level of grasp
of the issues, it's enough to say that H2O levels in the atmosphere
are a short-lived response function to longer term net greenhouse
warming, part of which is due to CO2, and that H2O tends to amplify
the effects of adding additional CO2.  For more discussion about H2O
and CO2 at a very broad brush level, see:

http://www.lenntech.com/The-greenhouse-effect.htm

There is a section there called "WATER VAPOR" that you might jump
towards, if you want.

Jon

So, you don't know any more than Sloman about pressure broadening as
it may/may not affect AGW. Somehow I'm not surprised.

John

It seems we're just too dumb to understand the
real magic.

Too dumb to understand how wizards with 30%
disagreements on the constants can iterate
some matrices a bazillion times and all pin a
particular Kansas twister on the exact same
wingbeat of a particular Amazonian butterfly.

And fools like us don't know enough about
butterflies or science to comment.

And we never will.

If you are foolish enough to try and set up the straw man in which you
claim that because we can't predict the weather (which is chaotic)
more than few days ahead, we can't predict the climate (which is
rather more stable) the self-appellation of "fool" is tolerably
appropriate, although this is really a question of ignorance, rather
than stupidity.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
.