The AGW folks are really starting to change people's minds....

[sawyerloggingon]

I've always thought PRESIDENTS -- all of them -- were too extravagant with our money, but in the larger scheme of things, it pales by comparison to other things they do ... and I get tired of cons making big deals about things Obama does but didn't when republicans were in office ... that's what I mean by "this is all you got?"

It's not about money and you know it, stop deflecting and face reality.

 

[windowdressing]

It's not about money and you know it, stop deflecting and face reality.

you're hopeless ... listen, pace yourself ... you have three and half years more of the guy ... :roll:

 

[sawyerloggingon]

you're hopeless ... listen, pace yourself ... you have three and half years more of the guy ... :roll:

What's the matter, is my question just to difficult for an honest answer? :lol:

 

[windowdressing]

What's the matter, is my question just to difficult for an honest answer? :lol:

I see you're not taking my advice ... you insist on :beatdeadhorse

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I see you're not taking my advice ... you insist on :beatdeadhorse

Perfect description of Obama and AGW, a dead horse.:lol: Still won't answer my question though will you. Just admit it, when Obama takes his and her 727s to Hawaii it's hard to take him serious about AGW.

 

[windowdressing]

Perfect description of Obama and AGW, a dead horse.:lol: Still won't answer my question though will you. Just admit it, when Obama takes his and her 727s to Hawaii it's hard to take him serious about AGW.

yup ... I stopped taking him seriously long ago ... What president before him ever took a vacation or flew in an airplane? I can't think of any. Can you?

Oh wait, I just came by this on politifact ...

Our ruling

Sharpton said that Obama "has taken 92 days of vacation since he was sworn in," compared to 367 for President George W. Bush at the same point in his presidency. While this discrepancy is explained by the fact that Bush often worked from a family home in Texas whereas Obama has no equivalent family retreat, Sharpton has correctly cited data from the leading authority, CBS News’ Mark Knoller. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate the statement Mostly True.

Sharpton said this on August 9, 2013 ...

 

[sawyerloggingon]

yup ... I stopped taking him seriously long ago ... What president before him ever took a vacation or flew in an airplane? I can't think of any. Can you?

Oh wait, I just came by this on politifact ...

Our ruling

Sharpton said that Obama "has taken 92 days of vacation since he was sworn in," compared to 367 for President George W. Bush at the same point in his presidency. While this discrepancy is explained by the fact that Bush often worked from a family home in Texas whereas Obama has no equivalent family retreat, Sharpton has correctly cited data from the leading authority, CBS News’ Mark Knoller. The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate the statement Mostly True.

Sharpton said this on August 9, 2013 ...

You just can't get your head around his exorbitant use of fossil fuel as he preaches it's evils can you.

 

[windowdressing]

You just can't get your head around his exorbitant use of fossil fuel as he preaches it's evils can you.

Stung, didn't it? OUCH! :boohoo:

 

[Lord of Planar]

So when Obama preaches AGW and threatens to go around congress to enforce laws on AGW and then takes his and her 727s to Hawaii you don't wince just a bit?:lol:

Don't you also love Nancy Pelosi, who wanted her own 200 passenger jet as Speaker pf the house, and testifies on global warming?

 

[longview]

Not trying to pry, but I am understandably curious what qualifications have allowed you to catch what the majority of scientists working in the field of climatology for years missed. Have your observations been published in scientific journals? Have you tried to publish an article in a scientific journal?

I don't think I "caught" anything. I am just questioning where their actual theory is,
and what energy state tables would led CO2 to behave outside of it's normal pattern.
What they have is a set of observation, that are claimed to be linked.
Temperature rise---Co2 rise
The hypothesis is that these two events are linked.
A theory would define in testable scientific terms, How they are linked.
Without an actual theory, there is nothing to prove inaccurate.



For me lasers led to fiber optics, which led to telecommunications, and a decade in a University Science lab.

 

[Threegoofs]

I don't think I "caught" anything. I am just questioning where their actual theory is,
and what energy state tables would led CO2 to behave outside of it's normal pattern.



For me lasers led to fiber optics, which led to telecommunications, and a decade in a University Science lab.

1) the theory is a bit more involved than reading some 'energy state tables'. The imaginary science you guys come up with, and bizarre dismissal of the ability of scientists to do basic science is amazing.

2) Your explanation of your career path leads me to think you answered (repaired, possibly?)phones in a science lab. Telling.

 

[longview]

1) the theory is a bit more involved than reading some 'energy state tables'. The imaginary science you guys come up with, and bizarre dismissal of the ability of scientists to do basic science is amazing.

2) Your explanation of your career path leads me to think you answered (repaired, possibly?)phones in a science lab. Telling.

Actually the theory is what would connect the observed events together.
So IF the observed rise in Co2 is the primary driver in the observed warming,
then there must be quantum level description of how these events are linked.
Co2 being a molecule, has more complex energy levels that a single atom,
but the number is still finite.
Co2 can only pass energy to another atom or molecule, if it's emission wavelength
lines up with the absorption wavelength of the other atom,
or through direct vibrational contact.
So yes, a real theory would involve an energy state table, defining which
energy transition in Co2 was absorbed by the atom/molecule yet to be named.

Fyi my university had phone techs, but they were not allowed into my labs unescorted.

 

[Threegoofs]

Actually the theory is what would connect the observed events together.
So IF the observed rise in Co2 is the primary driver in the observed warming,
then there must be quantum level description of how these events are linked.
Co2 being a molecule, has more complex energy levels that a single atom,
but the number is still finite.
Co2 can only pass energy to another atom or molecule, if it's emission wavelength
lines up with the absorption wavelength of the other atom,
or through direct vibrational contact.
So yes, a real theory would involve an energy state table, defining which
energy transition in Co2 was absorbed by the atom/molecule yet to be named.

Fyi my university had phone techs, but they were not allowed into my labs unescorted.

Wow, That sure sounds scientific. You sure must have picked up a whole lotta peripheral scientific words and concepts in the lab.


The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
But the physics part of it has been pretty clear since the 1800s.

 

[longview]

Wow, That sure sounds scientific. You sure must have picked up a whole lotta peripheral scientific words and concepts in the lab.


The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
But the physics part of it has been pretty clear since the 1800s.

The problem is the physics part of Co2's warming could only account for between 1 to 2 degrees C
for a doubling of Co2 levels (280ppm to 560ppm)
To get to the level of warming suggested by the IPCC, 3 to 4 degrees C,
The forcing needs to be defined, Co2 cannot get there alone.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The problem is the physics part of Co2's warming could only account for between 1 to 2 degrees C
for a doubling of Co2 levels (280ppm to 560ppm)
To get to the level of warming suggested by the IPCC, 3 to 4 degrees C,
The forcing needs to be defined, Co2 cannot get there alone.

They explain it with the magical help of H2O. For some reason, they think this 1.2 degree rise from CO2 will cause at least a 1.8 degree rise from H2O. One problem with this, is because the overlapping spectra that COP2 and H2O share, CO2 warming is a much smaller amount yet.

 

[Threegoofs]

The problem is the physics part of Co2's warming could only account for between 1 to 2 degrees C
for a doubling of Co2 levels (280ppm to 560ppm)
To get to the level of warming suggested by the IPCC, 3 to 4 degrees C,
The forcing needs to be defined, Co2 cannot get there alone.

Why don't you go and publish this. I'm sure the PNAS editors will love it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Why don't you go and publish this. I'm sure the PNAS editors will love it.

It's already published. One respected scientist group in the AGW camp has it at 1.25 degrees for a doubling of CO2, in a laboratory setting, with no competing gasses.

Again, to get the larger amounts, they claim H2O feedback, which cannot be experimentally verified.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Why don't you go and publish this. I'm sure the PNAS editors will love it.

Your climate experts already know CO2 has insignificant warming. Look at this:



CO2 has a doubling value of 3.7 W/m^2, but at the surface, we have 1.2 W/m^2. That's because H2O is already absorbing more than half the spectra that reacts with CO2. Now it you look at process 1 and where it crosses with delta T, you see that a doubling of CO2 causes 0.12 degrees of warming. Process 2 takes place in the upper troposphere and has little or no effect in surface warming, and possible has a net cooling effect. Process 3 is the magical feedback loop that is experimentally impossible to duplicate. They assume these values by taking out the assumed changes other than CO2, and then subtract the known CO2 changes. What they are most likely really seeing is the changes the sun has had between the start and stop times of these changes.

 

[Threegoofs]

Your climate experts already know CO2 has insignificant warming. Look at this:



CO2 has a doubling value of 3.7 W/m^2, but at the surface, we have 1.2 W/m^2. That's because H2O is already absorbing more than half the spectra that reacts with CO2. Now it you look at process 1 and where it crosses with delta T, you see that a doubling of CO2 causes 0.12 degrees of warming. Process 2 takes place in the upper troposphere and has little or no effect in surface warming, and possible has a net cooling effect. Process 3 is the magical feedback loop that is experimentally impossible to duplicate. They assume these values by taking out the assumed changes other than CO2, and then subtract the known CO2 changes. What they are most likely really seeing is the changes the sun has had between the start and stop times of these changes.

Gosh. Somehow they are confused and think this will lead to Global Warming!

All these highly trained climate scientists, NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC need to be informed about this!! You need to let them know!!

And to think, a guy who fixes the machines in their labs is the one who knows the most about the science. Wow. Just like a Hollywood movie.

 

[code1211]

Your climate experts already know CO2 has insignificant warming. Look at this:



CO2 has a doubling value of 3.7 W/m^2, but at the surface, we have 1.2 W/m^2. That's because H2O is already absorbing more than half the spectra that reacts with CO2. Now it you look at process 1 and where it crosses with delta T, you see that a doubling of CO2 causes 0.12 degrees of warming. Process 2 takes place in the upper troposphere and has little or no effect in surface warming, and possible has a net cooling effect. Process 3 is the magical feedback loop that is experimentally impossible to duplicate. They assume these values by taking out the assumed changes other than CO2, and then subtract the known CO2 changes. What they are most likely really seeing is the changes the sun has had between the start and stop times of these changes.

Well, you cast the pearls. I'm afraid the respondent has the capability to understand predicted by the Speaker on the Mount.