Find us on Google+
Central Alabama 7 Day Forecast

An Interesting Day In The Office

| 9:09 pm January 19, 2007 | Comments (194)

It was 24 hours ago that the Drudge Report linked to our blog; specifically the piece I wrote about “The Weather Channel Mess”. A few notes about the day:

*I apologize to our regular readers for the morning weather discussion and Weather Xtreme video being posted so late. I had them ready on time, but due to all the traffic from the Drudge Report link, our site simply could not handle it all. We were down for part of the morning; blog and all. We are in a very interesting weather pattern, and lots of folks were not happy we weren’t there this morning when they woke up. I am so sorry.

*I have over 1,000 e-mails in the inbox; these are thoughs on the blog post. I was shocked; about 8 in 10 have been very positive and supportive. Thanks to everyone who took the time to write; even those who disagree. The e-mails came from far and wide, including a number of foreign countries. Of course, under the post itself there are about 400 comments there for the world to read. I only deleted the ones that contained profanity or severe personal attacks.

*Thanks to ABC 33/40 for allowing me to be interviewed by Tracy Haynes on our 11:00 news this morning; he is a seasoned professional and his questions were excellent. And, thanks to my pals Rick and Bubba as always for allowing some time to discuss the issue on the show the last two mornings. You can watch the Spann/Haynes exchange on the ABC 33/40 site here, just look under “news video” on the right side.

*I am scheduled to be on the Glenn Beck TV show on CNN, and the Hannity and Colmes show on FNC Monday night to discuss the issue. With breaking news and such, you never know if you wind up on the air, but that is the plan for now. I thank these folks for the nation platform for this voice to be heard.

*We will dedicate the next WeatherBrains podcast to this issue; we will record it Monday evening and post it to iTunes early Tuesday morning of next week. I am hopeful someone that is a big believer in man-made global warming can join us, or someone who believes that anyone who disagrees with man-made global warming should have their AMS CBM taken away. We like to present both sides. If you have never listened to that show, you can bookmark the site here so you can listen on your computer, or simply search for “WeatherBrains” in iTunes.

*Rest assured this blog won’t turn into a constant “global warming” commentary. Nothing will change… same writers, same material you have seen in blog form since November 2004. We actually started writing these kind of posts before the term “blog” was invented… the old “WeatherTalk” articles were first published when ABC 33/40 went on the air in 1996. Long time readers know who we are and what we do.

*Thanks to Brian Peters for covering the afternoon blog post and discussion for me today; that allowed me some extra time to speak with newspaper reporters and other members of the media.

We get back to normal (I hope!) this weekend… Brian will have the Weather Xtreme videos here this weekend, and my next Weather Xtreme video will be posted Monday morning by 7:00 a.m. Have a wonderful weekend.

Comments

Category: Uncategorized

Comments (194)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Jay says:

    Bill Taylor – I think you might be reached a too hasty conclusion by reading that one part of the NASA website. You should continued onto the visible light section:

    http://imagers.gsfc.nasa.gov/ems/visible.html

    Note that one of the examples they use is a light bulb. And I think we can all agree that when a light bulb has been on for a while, it’s HOT! But, that doesn’t mean we stop seeing the light it emits – it still emits light in the visible spectrum!

    Secondly, regarding your comments on a blackbody, I don’t know if you are confused or simply misunderstand the term. A blackbody is a theoretical body that emits and absorbs all wavelengths in the spectrum. The Sun is probably one of the closest obvious things we have to a blackbody, as NASA also agrees with:

    http://imagers.gsfc.nasa.gov/ems/uv.html

    “Our Sun emits light at all the different wavelengths in electromagnetic spectrum…”

    Now, regarding Earth, no, we are not a blackbody, but that doesn’t change the general conclusion reached – that is, Earth emits radiation into outer space in the infrared wavelengths, not visible light (we don’t produce our own light!). What’s tangible proof of this? Well, on a local weather broadcast (perhaps even Mr. Spann’s, which I have not seen), they will sometimes show an infrared satellite picture. This satellite measures the radiation emitted from the ground and from the tops of clouds and then translates it into a satellite image that we can use (particularly at night) to track storms, etc.

    Here’s an example of a color-enhanced infrared image: http://www.rap.ucar.edu/weather/satellite/displaySat.php?region=US&itype=ir&size=small&endDate=20070124&endTime=-1&duration=0

    This is opposed to the visible light channel, which can only work during daylight hours since it relies on sunlight, which is in the visible light range.

    http://www.rap.ucar.edu/weather/satellite/displaySat.php?region=US&itype=vis&size=small&endDate=20070124&endTime=-1&duration=0

    I hoped this helped to clarify some of the confusion on this. I would also like to comment, though, that I think that the blogmaster should being inserting clarifications on this blog for those “bloggers” who do not understand the basic physics. I’m fine with debating the global warming argument per se, but these other misconceptions on basic operations of the earth climate system really are not debatable but instead rely on proper education.

  2. Jay says:

    Eric B. – Your compliment is appreciated.

    Let me address something that you mentioned in your comment. What people have to realize is that CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) have a certain “residency” time in our atmosphere. That means that if suddenly tomorrow every single fossil fuel consuming product in the world was shut down and only “natural” sources of CO2, methane, etc. were operating, the Earth would still experience a gradual warming over time. CO2 does not just “disappear”. This is what folks might hear as “committed warming.” That is, based on how much carbon we have already burned ande dumped into the atmosphere, we have a certain level of what we scientists call “forcing” on the climate system that we have to deal with in the next 50-100 years. What is translates to in terms of climate change is debatable, and I would welcome that sort of debate in a forum like this rather than the one that has ensued.

    But you’re right, Eric B. – switching our lifestyles to alternative fuel sources and becoming less dependent on oil and coal is actually a great thing, even economically! Heck, President Bush even agrees with this, as he stated last night in his State of the Union address. An industry of supplying power by renewable resources is still a moneymaker. So, if folks are opposed to that for economic reasons, I just don’t buy it (well, unless you’re the CEO of some big oil-producing company, but even then, I would argue that there is so much invention possible that you can find a new niche and still make money).

    I don’t know if we will ever agree on whether or not anthropogenic sources of carbon are negatively impacting our environment and the climate of Earth. No, we don’t “control” all of climate, but we can certainly influence some impacts it has. But, why not just agree that we can do better than a carbon-based economy? A nation that formed a new government which, at the time, twas revolutionary – that mastered the science of flight – that sent a man to the moon – is certainly capable of generating and stepping up our technology to the next level. Let’s be leaders once again on this front and just commit to do it.

  3. Bill Taylor says:

    any “confusion” sir is coming from YOU, jay, with claims like THIS

    “This is opposed to the visible light channel, which can only work during daylight hours since it relies on sunlight, which is in the visible light range.”

    YOU contuinue to imply that sunlight is NOT infrared ALSO…..sunlight is the ENTIRE light spectrum, not just visible as you try to imply! and when you say that sunlight IS IN THE VISIBLE LIGHT RANGE that is FALSE because sunlight is ALSO outside the visible light range.

    as to my understanding of the science involved(education) thank you for the insult but in reading the posts sir i clearly have shown a far better grasp of the basics than you.

    i MANY posts ago indicated that night vision seeing uses infrared to “SEE” the heat coming off various objects, why you try to claim i dont understand the basics of LIGHT spectrums is beyond me, YOU are making the FALSE claims about it not me.

  4. Bill Taylor says:

    again, show me, you folks claim we haumans can “force” the climate.

    there is a huge cold front coming into the lower 48 over the next 2 weeks, IF we humans have so much ability to “force” the climate of this whole planets, why dont we use just a bit of that ability concentrated over the lower 48 and STOP this cold front from coming south?

    the POINT is for those that claim we can “force” the whole global system, please explain why with that MASSIVE power and ability we cant change the temperature over ONE tiny little segment for just a few days?

    as to the claim of residual effects causing continued warming no matter what we do….HOW did we have the COOLING in the mid 20th century????

    the co2 was already in the atmosphere, warming had already happened, but yet strangely this claimed forcing reversed and we had a period of COOLING!

    common sense, IF co2 controls the temperature to the extent that it can overturn BILLIONS of years of natural processes, then CLEARLY each year must be hotter than the year before, each day should be warmer than the day before because the co2 trapped more heat from yesterday that is still here.

  5. Bill Taylor says:

    another common sense question about using ice cores to CLAIM we KNOW the temperature globally for any given year, as example 489,000 years ago what was the global average temperature please????

    the POINT is an ice core tells MAYBE some part of what happened in this ONE isolated location in this ONE period of time(the moment those air bubbles got frozen inside the glacier)!

    to claim you can determine global temperatures with any accuracy whatsoever from the year 386,000BC by looking at an ice core borders on LUNACY!

  6. Jay says:

    Bill Taylor – Please re-read #145 and then re-read what I wrote above regarding infrared and visible light. There’s no contradiction – maximum emission from the Sun is in the shortwave band. The infrared that the sun emits is small compared to visible light and does not contribute to what the Earth receives from the sun..

    Form NASA:

    http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/emspectrum.html

    “Electromagnetic radiation from space is unable to reach the surface of the Earth except at a very few wavelengths, such as the visible spectrum, radio frequencies, and some ultraviolet wavelengths. Astronomers can get above enough of the Earth’s atmosphere to observe at some infrared wavelengths from mountain tops or by flying their telescopes in an aircraft.”

    So, as you can see, the surface of Earth sees only shortwave radiation from space. Infrared radiation from space (the sun) does not make it to the surface. Can we now agree on this fact?

  7. Jay says:

    Sorry about a double post.

    My comment: “So, as you can see, the surface of Earth sees only shortwave radiation from space.” was written too quickly. I should have also mentioned that very longwaves also make it (like microwaves, which is used in some satellite technolgies). I should have also referenced the picture in that article. It’s quite informative. It clearly shows that infrared radiation from space does not make it to the surface and does not provide the heating of our surface. It is, in fact, shortwave radiation as I have stated numerous times.

    Sorry about that.

  8. Bill Taylor says:

    NO we cant agree on that BS.

    when i step outside and the sunlight hits my skin why do I FEEL warmth?

    IF the sun’s IR light doesnt make it to the surface then I could NOT feel any warming.

    when somebody shines a flashlight on you do you feel warmth from that VISIBLE light?????

    that “graph” claims that UV light doesnt make it to the surface either, it shows UV light stopping FAR ABOVE where it falsely claims IR stops????

    how do we get sunburned IF the UV energy from the sun NEVER makes it to the surface please?

    why do we FEEL warmth from sunlight IF it doesnt have IR that makes it to the surface please?

    sorry but claiming that the earth does NOT get IR waves from the sun shows you sir are completel;y out of touch with even the most basic scicnce on this issue!

    how dare you insult my education then followup with this LUNACY

  9. Bill Taylor says:

    dr cullen just said that “climate change” is taking a seat alongdside terrorism as a threat to the planet.

    common sense follows, please folks words have meaning, i defy any “scientist” to show that CHANGING climate has NOT been the norm here for many billion years.

    IF we werent having “climate change” that would be HUGE news.

  10. Bill Taylor says:

    I disagree with that wording because it is 100% true that the climate is changing it always has been….my opinion that wording is used to gain affirmation then that affirmation is applied to the UNSPOKEN climate change she is promoting, human caused global warming.

    agreeing with the concept of changing climate in no way ENDORSES human caused global warming.

  11. Bill Taylor says:

    sorry but i must repost this scientific POINT that is agreed upon by the global warming folks, that I disagree with 100%

    “So, as you can see, the surface of Earth sees only shortwave radiation from space. Infrared radiation from space (the sun) does not make it to the surface. Can we now agree on this fact?”

    jay, again i disagree strongly.

  12. Jay says:

    Bill Taylor – I have provided a lot of references for my points, even using the source you used to get your infrared radiation information (the NASA site). Yet, you have dismissed this knowledge immediately as false because it contradicts with you were taught and/or believe.

    I do not know how else to say this, but I’ll make the point again – shortwave radiation from the Sun is absorbed by objects on Earth and this energy absorption then results in the warmth we feel (if you like, it’s an energy conversion to heat through absorption). We do not get hit by infrared radiation from the sun!

    But now I’ll turn the tables to you. I ask that now you post a source supporting your argument. All good science has references or sources to back them up. Apparently, according to you, millions of other physicists and scientists have been taught the wrong thing in our education about radiation. Well now I open it to you to provide the proof that we are wrong.

    Please find a reference/source (website, book, magazine article, something in writing) which states what you claim is true (i.e., infrared radiation originating from the sun strikes the Earth’s surface and provides heat for Earth). Please post that reference on this site for us all to see and peruse.

    Thank you.

  13. Bill Taylor says:

    sorry jay, there is no link for common sense!

    i understand that visible light also has heat energy just not nearly as much as infrared.

    my common sense example, put your hand under a fluorescent light tube, you are being hit by the visible light rays, can you feel HEAT?

    put your hand under an infrared lamp, can you feel the heat?

    I submit the heat I feel from direct sunlight is mainly infrared rays.

    The sun’s rays

    Besides emitting light rays that we can see, the sun sends out ultraviolet rays that are invisible. The ultraviolet (UV) rays can cause suntans and sunburns. About 6% of the solar radiation that reaches the earth’s surface is ultraviolet radiation (very short wavelengths), 48% is visible light and 46% infrared light.

    another i found

    Herschel did not have a name for the energy creating the higher temperature below the red spectrum. He simply called it infra (below) red. It is this part of the sunlight spectrum that heats the surface of the Earth. Although we can’t see infrared light, we feel its effects because of the buildup and release of heat energy.

  14. Vlad the Tepes says:

    I personally think the U.S. Senate should haul both Jay and Bill and Eric up to Capital Hill and provide testimony. Guys…..this is good stuff! I’ve learned more from your blogs than I ever did in grad school.

    Seriously though…..you gents failed to heed my orginal post. There has been a definite uptick in the Global Mean temperature…..can we agree on that? Good…..and CO2 is a Greenhouse gas….can we agree on that? Good……and there has been an increase in Greenhouse gases over the past….oh, say…..60, 70 years?? (you can quibble over the number of years….I’m just choosing the peak years of the industrial age). We still in general agreement? Outstanding!

    The $64 question is……has the increase in atmospheric CO2 produced from manmade sources contributed so significantly to the elevation in Greenhouse gases that it is the sole, or primary (choose your alarmist adjective) reason for rise in Global Mean Temperatures?

    No one knows. It’s a flawed syllogism. But as a veteran politico….I know what I’m talking about……the Communist manifesto clearly says to indoctrinate the children (public education…..PC) and to control resources. I will not get into a spitting contest over scientific minutiae. I will just say that the evidence to deduce that man is causing Global Warming is in its infancy at best(I’ve seen no gualified science to make adequate comparisons)……but the motivation behind its proponents (or most of them) is indisputable.

  15. Jay says:

    Vlad – I appreciate you taking the time to read my posts. I have spent most of my time explaining the basic science but I have also injected what I do feel is convincing evidence that global temperature rise is more than just “natural.”

    Your money question:

    “has the increase in atmospheric CO2 produced from manmade sources contributed so significantly to the elevation in Greenhouse gases that it is the sole, or primary (choose your alarmist adjective) reason for rise in Global Mean Temperatures? No one knows.”

    You are correct that no one knows the answer 100% to do this, and we won’t know “the answer” until it happens. But, what scientists like myself and many others are doing is using what we know about the science and piecing together the puzzles. We have to do this and we have to report our findings. I understand the frustration that some people are alarmists, and I distance myself from those scientists as I believe they are doing the science a disservice.

    I never understood the “to get money” argument. First off, climate scientists are not exactly highly paid. Secondly, researching “global warming” nowadays puts one in so much scrutiny that obtaqining funding from certain organizations is very difficult. I entered this field because I have a pasison for climate and for science. I search for problems and the answers to those problems. That’s it.

    I also am discouraged by the issue of climate turning into a “right” versus “left” issue when it really should just be an “everyone” issue. I believe that politicizing this issue only hampers efforts to come to a solution and it forces people to become more distrustful of the other side. I wish this wasn’t the case.

  16. Eric B. says:

    Bill… I am very sorry but you are off the mark. I believe you are speaking of tiny flashlights that use AAA batteries. Please pick up a strong flash light such as those now available that say 1 Million candle power (at Walmart) and hold it even feet away from your arm and let your companion flip the switch on. You will immediately start feeling “Warmth”. I do agree that the sun gives off other spectrums and radiation that a flash light does not give. The atmosphere, thankfully, protects us from some of those forms. Did you ever remember the early form of air conditioner refrigeration? I forgot the actual name for it but it was replaced when scientists discovered that it was damaging the ozone layer. So humans caused that damage, whether it is permanent I am not sure. It is illegal to purchase that early refrigeration. Humans caused that damage and your group completely denies that we are unable to harm the Earth. If you have a car out of the 1980’s that still has the old air conditioner system, you will be required to update it to the new before it can be recharged.

    Your group completely overlooks that we “humans” can alter Earth and therefore alter climate. We are the highest species on the planet therefore we have the intelligence and opportunity to protect it the best we possibly can. We have to be intelligent and quickly investigate ways to reduce automobile and industrial pollution. Gasoline combustion engines not only emits co2 they give off other contaminates as well. Just to name a second, methane which is deadly! If you have a garage, leave the door closed and let your car run for a period of time and you will become intoxicated! Now, Bill… imagine this: take Millions of cars and imagine them running “around the clock”! And then imagine how many years we have been running those million of cars around the clock? Luckily mother nature can absorb some of it in her large atmosphere but how much longer can she absorb? And further, as the human population increases on Earth, so does transportation and more industries!

    Your supporters say we have had periods of warming and cooling and that this period is likely another warming period. How do you know that this warming period is natural? And if it is natural is it accelerated due to human induced contamination in the atmosphere?

    Vlad, I say lets go… I’m ready to support the bill necessary to reduce emissions dramatically.

  17. Eric B. says:

    Jay, I agree with your statements. This is really everyone’s issue but unfortunately Bill’s group is making it a left issue. Subconsciously, I think the other group is not willing to put forth the effort. They want to continue their way of life exactly because things will mostly be ok while they are here. This is why we still burn petroleum 100 years later. It works well and it is going to take a lot of effort to move to another fuel but we have got to do it. I pick on petroleum because we use that so extensively.

  18. Bill Taylor says:

    eric…when you start off with this, it shows you have no interest in honest discussion.

    complete DISTORTION in your second sentence, i wont waste time with further response than EXPOSING your distortion.

    “Bill… I am very sorry but you are off the mark. I believe you are speaking of tiny flashlights that use AAA batteries.”

    i clearly described the source of light as a “fluorescent tube”, the most COMMON lighting indoors in the businessplace.

  19. Bill Taylor says:

    ozone is formed when oxygen is heated…..o2 is what we breathe ozone is o3 an UNstable molecule of oxygen that forms when it gets heated, the UV light asborbed by the upper atmosphere creates HEAT, that heat causes ozone formation, in the winter over the poles they are tilted away from the sun they get a glancing shot of sunlight that doesnt produce near as much heat so LESS ozone forms.

    it is NATURAL that ozone would thin over the poles when sunlight is lessened!

  20. Jay says:

    Bill – Thanks for your ozone discussion. Maximum ozone concentrations exists towards the summer pole. During the polar winter, you are right that ozone cannot be produced at the poles and that there can be destruction of ozone there (but that doesn’t mean there is zero ozone there). So there is a natural thinning of ozone expected.

    What happens is that the tropics serve as a large source of ozone for the planet. That makes sense – this is the area that receives the most sunshine year-round. Ozone produced there is then transported poleward, and added to ozone locally produced during the summer months, we see higher concentrations of ozone at the middle and high latitudes, not, as we might think, in the tropics. The tropics are also a region where destruction of ozone occurs frequently, adding further to the relative minimum there.

    But destruction of ozone is also accelerated throuugh chloroflurocarbons (CFCs), as was shown by scientists in the 80s. This is because when UV radiation strikes CFCs, chlorine ions are formed, which interact and destroy ozone molecules. So indeed, beyond natural destruction, man-made sources also contribute to destruction of stratospheric ozone. Since knowing this, many countries have curbed back or ended using CFCs, and later measurements of the ozone layer showed that the thinning was “not as thin” as what was observed while CFCs were used.

    Here’s a link to a map of ozone concentrations during June 2000 as measured from TOMS, an instrument which measures total ozone in a column of atmosphere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IM_ozavg_ept_200006.png The units in the figure are such that the higher the number (Dobson Unit), the higher the concentrations. Note that we do not get measurements from the South Pole since it is the polar winter. That, however, does not mean the ozone concentration is zero there.

  21. Vlad the Tepes says:

    Jay, I snagged this from a post someone left several days ago. It ably answers the “money” question you mentioned. Sorry….you may not agree….but the LEFT is supporting the Global Warming Theory (and it’s just that….theory, not conclusive…not a “crisis”…just a theory). Again, it’s the communist manifesto….read it. And while you’re at it….read When Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Kinda dry and long….but illuminating all the same.
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

    Eric, I support reduction in emissions for general air quality…not because of the theory surrounding Global Warming. As a conservationist….I believe we should be wise in our uses of natural resources, but not alarmist.

    Sorry guys, I’m working on a theory that this particular verion of our Founding Fathers’ wonderful democracy is running on fumes and needs a tuneup. (Our founding fathers didn’t expect us to last more than 100 years anyway….the candle that burns twice as bright….burns twice as quick. Read The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire…..Edwin Gibbons). Precisely how we get that desperately needed tuneup is another matter. My point: I’m disgusted with our government in general and don’t want ANY legislation passed–period. Not until the rules and players are changed.

    Your scientific exchanges have truly been fascinating….definitely helped me understand some things….however, my studied opinion is still the same: We’re in a natural cyclical period of increased warming. Man’s influence is a drop in the bucket.

  22. Bill Taylor says:

    i clearly said “thinng” never in any way said NO ozone.

    as to this moving vast distances of the ozone, i need to see how this could happen, ozone is UNstable meaning it seeks to break its molecular bond without help from any outside agent.

    ozone doesnt accumulate, it dissipates on its own….ever been outside right after an intense local elecrtical storm? notice how clear and almost sweet smelling the air was? that air had lots of ozone in it for a while.

  23. Bill Taylor says:

    the reality that people that call themselves “scientists” are also claiming NO infrared light from the sun makes it to the earths surface is SCARY…..it is so FALSE that the “sceintists” claiming this are stupid, willfully ignorant, or just plain old LYING to support their false claims.

    by the way early in these threads i pointed out that IF co2 was so great at trapping infrared heat that indeed they would al;so be stopping those rays as they come in, it has been claimed that our atmosphere stops ALL the infrared lgiht allowing NONE to make it to the surfce, that would MEAN that the greenhouse gases are actually causing COOLING by filtering out HEAT rays before they reach the earth.

  24. Jay says:

    Vlad – The article you quoted is by Dr. Richard Lindzen, a longtime strong opponent to the global warming issue. I would hardly use this as a source to prove a point, much like I would never use an “alarmist’s” work to prove a pro-global warming point. It’s a matter of you taking a look at the actual raw data yourself and coming to a conclusion. It’s media. It’s biased. That’s the way it is.

    Bill – Regarding ozone, the transport I spoke of is called the Brewer-Dobson Circulation. Here’s a link with some more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer

    On your second post above: I think we will just have to agree that the science you have learned or post here is just not the science that the rest of the scientific world (including the anti-global warming folks) supports and teaches. Again, you have supported NONE of your claim that the sun predominantly warms us through its own infrared radiation. I asked you for a reference and you simply cite “common sense.” There is danger in that, Bill. Common sense told early people that the Earth was the center of the Universe and did not spin (after all, if it’s spinning, why can’t we feel it…). Common sense also told people that the world was flat and you could “fall off” if you sailed too far. Two extreme examples – sure, but it was not until the advent of more science were these ideas proven to be false.

    Infrared is not the only radiation that produces heat! You argued above that UV provides heating to the straotpshere to produce ozone. Why can’t other shortwave (i.e., in the visible light spectrum) from the sun produce heat for the surface of Earth?

    You are stuck on infrared radiation because this is something you experience here on Earth (through special glasses). This is radiation emitted from objects that are much much colder than the sun. That is why they emit in the infrared. But infrared radiation is NOT the only radiation capable of heat energy! You feel the sun’s warmth on your face because you are absorbing sunlight. But that doesn’t mean that radiation has to be in the infrared spectrum. Heat can come from all kinds of radiation, and since the sun is so hot, it emits most of its energy in short wavelengths.

    Bottom line Bill – You need to back up your idea, and you can’t. I have already stated the science above, including links to sites where you get your information. Those are the facts, not my spin on them and certainly not some conspiracy. PLEASE, if you want to post about this topic again, provide a link or a book reference. Help your case by proving yourself with sources, rather than just attacking me and every other scientist.

    I don’t know you personally Bill and I don’t know what sort of training, education, or professional experience you have in the field of earth science. But, I’ve been cordial and explained my viewpoints thoroughly. I only ask of the same from you. Let me have the name of a book or a website link. Don’t copy and paste the text. Let me go to the site myself. And don’t use a middle school science guide to prove your point (where one of your quotes above came from). I don’t think you want to throw support for your position on that type of site.

    Otherwise, if you have nothing else to contribute to that topic, then let’s just consider it closed and move on. You made your point. I made mine. There’s nothing more to state about it. Can we please agree to not bog down the blog with anymore exchange of explaining what kind of radiation comes from the sun?

  25. Bill Taylor says:

    NOWHERE have i claimed that IR is the predominate source of heat, i have acknowledged that the visible specturm also has some heat.

    what i HAVE done is show YOUR claim that NONE of the IR makes it to the surface is FALSE.

    you shoot down things i never said or implied jay.

    of course i agree, jay nothing further can be gained as long as YOU insist that NO IR waves make it to the surface.

    jay, YOU just shot down a scientist and attacked him in the very post i am responding to.

    according to YOU anyone that disagrees with human caused GW is WRONG and to be dismissed.

  26. Eric B. says:

    Bill, my apology but I think you missed the point I tried to make. The sun’s energy is difficult to compare with an incandescent or florescent lighting. Early in the morning with the sun is at sun-rise, I feel no warmth and my skin is illuminated very well. Only when the amount of light is intensified at closer to noon or evening on a mostly cloudy day at around noon…

  27. interfaccia says:

    Lavoro grande con il luogo! Siete il padrone!

  28. Ab says:

    It is possible to delete all this slip?

  29. Abbe says:

    Nice..nice post.

  30. Abbey says:

    Thanks man, i agree

  31. Abbie says:

    Glad to hear it

  32. Abi says:

    Awesome, man

  33. Acacia says:

    Not bad, it really can occur

  34. valtrex says:

    hi your site is best visit my

  35. hi great work thank you

  36. Adi says:

    Is it ok?

  37. Cleo Foust says:

    Hi webmaster – This is by far the best looking site I’ve seen. It was completely easy to navigate and it was easy to look for the information I needed. Fantastic layout and great content! Every site should have that. Awesome job

  38. […] http://www.jamesspann.com/wordpress/?p=659 – ABC 33/40 Weather Blog » An Interesting Day In The Office…Going on holiday in the beautiful American West? WestWeeks specializes in timeshare resort condominium lodging rental weeks in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, and Washington States.Bookmarked and Pinged by http://www.westweeks.com/ […]

  39. Mick Hanson says:

    I’ve been looking for this exact info on this subject for a long time.  Bookmarked and recommended!

  40. We protest against unjust criticism, but we accept unearned applause. – Jose Narosky

  41. Uniblue Registry Booster Review | 2012 Version Reviewed For Changes And Useful Features.

  42. Sorry for the large evaluation, but I’m really loving the new Zune, and hope this, as nicely as the outstanding critiques some other men and women have created, will assist you choose if it is the appropriate option for you.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.