A theory to watch, as it will destroy the global warming theory.

‘Thermos Flask’ analogy More Compelling than ‘Blanket Effect’
Time and again independent scientists have demonstrated to leading climatologists in private emails that space has no temperature because it is an empty vacuum and as such acts as a perfect insulator (like a thermos flask). Thus it inhibits the escape of heat energy from Earth’s atmosphere; only the cooling effect of ‘wet’ gases in our turbulent atmosphere dispose of the excess heat energy via convection and conduction.

Time and again the Spencers and Lindzens cling onto their falsities. Once this fundamental fact is understood they will appreciate Earth endures a ‘thermos flask-like effect’ influencing our planet to retain (not lose) heat.

People who say that ‘space is cold, because of the CMBR’ will often concede they have no training in thermodynamics.

“It is perfectly ambiguous and a red-herring/straw man, just like the way they argue with the greenhouse effect,” says Postma. Thankfully, the reverse of the alleged greenhouse gas effect  is true – atmospheric gases act to keep our planet COOLER than it would otherwise be.


http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/47113.html

Also more indepth
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:NF4JghHWDaoJ:www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Vacuum_space_and_Spencer.pdf+ghe+vs+flask&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgBu15pvoFHfSZ6boSEOxwY42PhjWVL20xyI2PUrHkh0TbPFh62KSAd-u0vK55foSY4RxpuwFGDuz5vZ7hB2vbSxJzqRX7nzA-DijVhq6bL7u6pqXJZijXkU2Fq1ekGxEnJdMIl&sig=AHIEtbTe8lyJ_IETHur2nWCYeq-ZrdBrWw

Youve stumbled on the latest denier reason why humans cant possibly be blamed, which is based on nothing more than a thought fart by some knob jockey.

At least you are consistant.

Even Roy Spencer himself, the big Kahuna of denialists had something to say about that particular howler.  It's so ridiculous that even he had the recourse to write this:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/


Quote:

Yes, Virginia, the “Vacuum” of Space Does have a “Temperature” February 21st, 2012 Usually, I refrain from addressing silly scientific claims. But since some people seem determined to go to any extent to ‘disprove’ greenhouse gas theory, in this instance I am going against my better judgment to answer a particularly crazy article entitled, “Roy Spencer’s Fatal Error: Believing the Vacuum of Space Has a Temperature“. I can’t tell whether John O’Sullivan really believes what he has written there. While I will assume he does, it still feels like I’m being challenged by a supermarket tabloid to offer proof that Elvis was not abducted by space aliens.

Read what he says. He adds this at the end:

Quote:

And maybe someday Elvis will return from space with a great new weight loss product.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 11:00am:

Youve stumbled on the latest denier reason why humans cant possibly be blamed, which is based on nothing more than a thought fart by some knob jockey. At least you are consistant.

Theories are thought farts. Bugger me, dont you know anything about the science process.

muso wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 11:10am:

Even Roy Spencer himself, the big Kahuna of denialists had something to say about that particular howler.  It's so ridiculous that even he had the recourse to write this: http://www.drroyspencer.com/ Quote: Yes, Virginia, the “Vacuum” of Space Does have a “Temperature” February 21st, 2012 Usually, I refrain from addressing silly scientific claims. But since some people seem determined to go to any extent to ‘disprove’ greenhouse gas theory, in this instance I am going against my better judgment to answer a particularly crazy article entitled, “Roy Spencer’s Fatal Error: Believing the Vacuum of Space Has a Temperature“. I can’t tell whether John O’Sullivan really believes what he has written there. While I will assume he does, it still feels like I’m being challenged by a supermarket tabloid to offer proof that Elvis was not abducted by space aliens. Read what he says. He adds this at the end: [quote] And maybe someday Elvis will return from space with a great new weight loss product.

[/quote]
Richard Lindzen is refuting it as well. That does not mean it is done and dusted. A theory is a theory. Science will determine its validity in time.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 11:00am:

Youve stumbled on the latest denier reason why humans cant possibly be blamed, which is based on nothing more than a thought fart by some knob jockey.

Anyone who still believes the crap about CO2 etc are ignorant of our planet and how it works and has worked.

We are carbon based creatures, and the entire planet WORKS on carbon. Previous ice ages have been in response to carbon increases ... ie When there were NO carbon producing industries, cattle stations, energy production, waste disposal, ad infinitum ... That's right there were NO human CO2 production activities THEN, it was a NATURAL cycle of our planet

OR it could be the perturbations of other celestial bodies passing our orbital path, but CO2 is the brainchild of the elite as another 'diversion' and a way to create more economic woes by emptying OUR pockets and filling theirs.

Jan wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 11:25am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 24th, 2012 at 11:00am: Youve stumbled on the latest denier reason why humans cant possibly be blamed, which is based on nothing more than a thought fart by some knob jockey. Anyone who still believes the crap about CO2 etc are ignorant of our planet and how it works and has worked. We are carbon based creatures, and the entire planet WORKS on carbon. Previous ice ages have been in response to carbon increases ... ie When there were NO carbon producing industries, cattle stations, energy production, waste disposal, ad infinitum ... That's right there were NO human CO2 production activities THEN, it was a NATURAL cycle of our planet OR it could be the perturbations of other celestial bodies passing our orbital path, but CO2 is the brainchild of the elite as another 'diversion' and a way to create more economic woes by emptying OUR pockets and filling theirs.

Going with the flask theory, you would have to follow that the CO2 increase following a temperature increase, is a natural response to cool the planet. Self sustaining mechanism.

Of course an unscientific response Jolly, but go ahead and jump on me.

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 11:29am:

Jan wrote on Feb 24th, 2012 at 11:25am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 24th, 2012 at 11:00am: Youve stumbled on the latest denier reason why humans cant possibly be blamed, which is based on nothing more than a thought fart by some knob jockey. Anyone who still believes the crap about CO2 etc are ignorant of our planet and how it works and has worked. We are carbon based creatures, and the entire planet WORKS on carbon. Previous ice ages have been in response to carbon increases ... ie When there were NO carbon producing industries, cattle stations, energy production, waste disposal, ad infinitum ... That's right there were NO human CO2 production activities THEN, it was a NATURAL cycle of our planet OR it could be the perturbations of other celestial bodies passing our orbital path, but CO2 is the brainchild of the elite as another 'diversion' and a way to create more economic woes by emptying OUR pockets and filling theirs. Going with the flask theory, you would have to follow that the CO2 increase following a temperature increase, is a natural response to cool the planet. Self sustaining mechanism. Of course an unscientific response Jolly, but go ahead and jump on me.

Yep! Just the way our refridgerators work using the same principal, heat produces cold.

There is no cold without heat ... try making ice without heat for yourself.

Learn some basic science to prove the Elite have played CO2 believers for ignorant fools and the scientists who promote this path are government paid stooges.

The thermos flask analogy is a good one and basically sound.

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 11:29am:

Jan wrote on Feb 24th, 2012 at 11:25am: Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 24th, 2012 at 11:00am: Youve stumbled on the latest denier reason why humans cant possibly be blamed, which is based on nothing more than a thought fart by some knob jockey. Anyone who still believes the crap about CO2 etc are ignorant of our planet and how it works and has worked. We are carbon based creatures, and the entire planet WORKS on carbon. Previous ice ages have been in response to carbon increases ... ie When there were NO carbon producing industries, cattle stations, energy production, waste disposal, ad infinitum ... That's right there were NO human CO2 production activities THEN, it was a NATURAL cycle of our planet OR it could be the perturbations of other celestial bodies passing our orbital path, but CO2 is the brainchild of the elite as another 'diversion' and a way to create more economic woes by emptying OUR pockets and filling theirs. Going with the flask theory, you would have to follow that the CO2 increase following a temperature increase, is a natural response to cool the planet. Self sustaining mechanism. Of course an unscientific response Jolly, but go ahead and jump on me.

jump.

Jan wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 11:25am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 24th, 2012 at 11:00am: Youve stumbled on the latest denier reason why humans cant possibly be blamed, which is based on nothing more than a thought fart by some knob jockey. Anyone who still believes the crap about CO2 etc are ignorant of our planet and how it works and has worked. We are carbon based creatures, and the entire planet WORKS on carbon. Previous ice ages have been in response to carbon increases ... ie When there were NO carbon producing industries, cattle stations, energy production, waste disposal, ad infinitum ... That's right there were NO human CO2 production activities THEN, it was a NATURAL cycle of our planet OR it could be the perturbations of other celestial bodies passing our orbital path, but CO2 is the brainchild of the elite as another 'diversion' and a way to create more economic woes by emptying OUR pockets and filling theirs.

Oh Jan, you seem such a lovely young lady, but where have you got these hair brained idea's.  ?

co2 levels fluctuating widely is all part of mother nature, but mother nature doesnt give two hoots about us humans, as it doesnt about any animals. Good old mother nature causes mass extinctions for a  laugh.

I dont want to be extinct, or even have our population halve because of the wars and famine that will trigger.

Co2 has never risen as fast is has now save for the odd massive impact from a meteror.  Co2, and temperature are rising simply because we are unleashing all this dormant co2 thats been kept undergound as coal and oil.  Its us thats doing us.

Of course mother nature dont give a stuff who's doing it.   The world will carry on long after humans are extinct, but thats not my concern. As a human, the world is only useful to me while humans exists.

We can stop mass extinction of us and other species if we want to. We have a choice.

Jan wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 11:25am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 24th, 2012 at 11:00am: Youve stumbled on the latest denier reason why humans cant possibly be blamed, which is based on nothing more than a thought fart by some knob jockey. Anyone who still believes the crap about CO2 etc are ignorant of our planet and how it works and has worked. We are carbon based creatures, and the entire planet WORKS on carbon. Previous ice ages have been in response to carbon increases ... ie When there were NO carbon producing industries, cattle stations, energy production, waste disposal, ad infinitum ... That's right there were NO human CO2 production activities THEN, it was a NATURAL cycle of our planet OR it could be the perturbations of other celestial bodies passing our orbital path, but CO2 is the brainchild of the elite as another 'diversion' and a way to create more economic woes by emptying OUR pockets and filling theirs.

Jan - First explain that you know what you are arguing against and I'll take your post seriously, because from your post, I'm sorry but you don't have a clue.

It's the first rule of debate that you need to understand what you're arguing about.

Now are you saying that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas? 

What's your understanding of radiative transfer?

If you can't answer the basics, then you're not really qualified to say "Anyone who still believes the crap about CO2 etc are ignorant of our planet and how it works and has worked."

In short, you're arguing from a position of proud ignorance.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 2:34pm:

Oh Jan, you seem such a lovely young lady, but where have you got these hair brained idea's.  ?

No1. I am not a 'Young' lady. I am 71 years old, have two children, 6 grandchildren, and 5 Great grandchildren, no grey hair and the pic for my avatar is me taken mid 2006 just after I was cleared of cancer, which I beat using "Mother Nature's therapies",


Quote:

co2 levels fluctuating widely is all part of mother nature, but mother nature doesnt give two hoots about us humans, as it doesnt about any animals. Good old mother nature causes mass extinctions for a  laugh.

Gee that's what I said. Mother Nature does what she needs to do to keep this planet healthy, just as she provides everything we need for us to be healthy .. but most people these days would rather listen to half educated idiots ... and follow Doctors orders.


Quote:

I dont want to be extinct, or even have our population halve because of the wars and famine that will trigger.

Get over it, because the elite have been engineering our population reduction (to 500,000,000) for many years, that's a reduction of 90%, not 50%


Quote:

Co2 has never risen as fast is has now save for the odd massive impact from a meteror.  Co2, and temperature are rising simply because we are unleashing all this dormant co2 thats been kept undergound as coal and oil.  Its us thats doing us.

Errr where did you hear that, were you around before the last ice age .. or the one before that?


Quote:

Of course mother nature dont give a stuff who's doing it.   The world will carry on long after humans are extinct, but thats not my concern. As a human, the world is only useful to me while humans exists.

She doesn't give a stuff because she is doing it herself, why not try and do something for yourself and follow her, instead of believing the people who really do want your extinction


Quote:

We can stop mass extinction of us and other species if we want to. We have a choice.

Do we now!!! So what's YOUR choice. I made my choice more than twenty years ago and the things that I learned about nature and the Elite are still proving to be accurate.

muso wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 3:20pm:

Jan - First explain that you know what you are arguing against and I'll take your post seriously, because from your post, I'm sorry but you don't have a clue.

HUH! I thought I made it admirably clear I was arguing against the CO2 global warming crap, that is being bandied about by those who have an 'agenda'. Why did you mention it if you didn't know.

Do YOU have a clue? Because judging from your post the only clue you have is how to make yourself look like a sceptic par excellence, and not a genuine enquirer.


Quote:

It's the first rule of debate that you need to understand what you're arguing about.

Yes indeed it is ... So! what are you arguing about, and what is your understanding?


Quote:

Now are you saying that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas?

Please post a quote of me saying that ... People who have to twist words to suit their understanding of a statement belong in the ignoramous IQ category. 


Quote:

What's your understanding of radiative transfer?

What's yours?


Quote:

If you can't answer the basics, then you're not really qualified to say "Anyone who still believes the crap about CO2 etc are ignorant of our planet and how it works and has worked."

Can YOU answer the basics, and are you qualified to refute what I have stated?
I have stated the basics, you just can't read with the comprehension needed to nut it out, or research the answers for yourself. Please feel free to add your own version of facts, from a source that is not written by sceptics, and not just a denial of presented FACTS!!!


Quote:

In short, you're arguing from a position of proud ignorance

I speak from a good study regimen and information from extremely well qualified teachers for more than 20 years ... what do you base your 'opinions' about me on? The ignorance is yours not mine.



 

muso wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 3:20pm:

It's the first rule of debate that you need to understand what you're arguing about. If you can't answer the basics, then you're not really qualified to say "Anyone who still believes the crap about CO2 etc are ignorant of our planet and how it works and has worked." In short, you're arguing from a position of proud ignorance.

Here y'go muso! Get your brain around this little bit of information.

http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php

Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming
Where We Stand on the Issue
C. D. Idso and K. E. Idso
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is little doubt the air's CO2 concentration has risen significantly since the inception of the Industrial Revolution; and there are few who do not attribute the CO2 increase to the increase in humanity's use of fossil fuels. There is also little doubt the earth has warmed slightly over the same period; but there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2 content will produce any global warming; for there are numerous problems with the popular hypothesis that links the two phenomena.

A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves nothing about causation. Proponents of the notion that increases in the air's CO2 content lead to global warming point to the past century's weak correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global air temperature as proof of their contention. However, they typically gloss over the fact that correlation does not imply causation, and that a hundred years is not enough time to establish the validity of such a relationship when it comes to earth's temperature history.

The observation that two things have risen together for a period of time says nothing about one trend being the cause of the other. To establish a causal relationship it must be demonstrated that the presumed cause precedes the presumed effect. Furthermore, this relationship should be demonstrable over several cycles of increases and decreases in both parameters. And even when these criteria are met, as in the case of solar/climate relationships, many people are unwilling to acknowledge that variations in the presumed cause truly produced the observed analogous variations in the presumed effect.

In thus considering the seven greatest temperature transitions of the past half-million years - three glacial terminations and four glacial inceptions - we note that increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2 concentration not only did not precede the changes in air temperature, they followed them, and by hundreds to thousands of years! There were also long periods of time when atmospheric CO2 remained unchanged, while air temperature dropped, as well as times when the air's CO2 content dropped, while air temperature remained unchanged or actually rose. Hence, the climate history of the past half-million years provides absolutely no evidence to suggest that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration will lead to significant global warming.

Strong [b]negative climatic feedbacks prohibit catastrophic warming[/b]. Strong negative feedbacks play major roles in earth's climate system. If they did not, no life would exist on the planet, for some perturbation would long ago have sent the world careening into a state of cosmic cold or horrendous heat; and we know from the fossil record that neither of these extremes has ever occurred, even over billions of years, and in spite of a large increase in the luminosity of the sun throughout geologic time.

Consider, in this regard, the water vapor that would be added to the atmosphere by enhanced evaporation in a warmer world. The extra moisture would likely lead to the production of more and higher-water-content clouds, both of which consequences would tend to cool the planet by reflecting more solar radiation back to space.

A warmer world would also mean a warmer ocean, which would likely lead to an increase in the productivity of marine algae or phytoplankton. This phenomenon, in turn, would enhance the biotic production of certain sulfur-based substances that diffuse into the air, where they are oxidized and converted into particles that function as cloud condensation nuclei. The resulting increase in the number of cloud-forming particles would thus produce more and smaller cloud droplets, which are more reflective of incoming solar radiation; and this phenomenon would also tend to cool the planet.

All of these warming-induced cloud-related cooling effects are very powerful. It has been shown, for example, that the warming predicted to result from a doubling of the air's CO2 content may be totally countered by: (1) a mere 1% increase in the reflectivity of the planet, or (2) a 10% increase in the amount of the world's low-level clouds, or (3) a 15 to 20% reduction in the mean droplet radius of earth's boundary-layer clouds, or (4) a 20 to 25% increase in cloud liquid water content. In addition, it has been demonstrated that the warming-induced production of high-level clouds over the equatorial oceans almost totally nullifies that region's powerful water vapor greenhouse effect, which supplies much of the temperature increase in the CO2-induced global warming scenario.

Most of these important negative feedbacks are not adequately represented in state-of-the-art climate models. What is more, many related (and totally ignored!) phenomena are set in motion when the land surfaces of the globe warm. In response to the increase in temperature between 25°N latitude and the equator, for example, the soil-to-air flux of various sulfur gases rises by a factor of 25, as a consequence of warmth-induced increases in soil microbial activity; and this phenomenon can lead to the production of more cloud condensation nuclei just as biological processes over the sea do. Clearly, therefore, any number of combinations of these several negative feedbacks could easily thwart the impetus for warming provided by future increases in the air's CO2 content.

Growth-enhancing effects of CO2 create an impetus for cooling. Carbon dioxide is a powerful aerial fertilizer, directly enhancing the growth of almost all terrestrial plants and many aquatic plants as its atmospheric concentration rises. And just as increased algal productivity at sea increases the emission of sulfur gases to the atmosphere, ultimately leading to more and brighter clouds over the world's oceans, so too do CO2-induced increases in terrestrial plant productivity lead to enhanced emissions of various sulfur gases over land, where they likewise ultimately cool the planet. In addition, many non-sulfur-based biogenic materials of the terrestrial environment play major roles as water- and ice-nucleating aerosols; and the airborne presence of these materials should also be enhanced by rising levels of atmospheric CO2. Hence, it is possible that incorporation of this multifaceted CO2-induced cooling effect into the suite of equations that comprise the current generation of global climate models might actually tip the climatic scales in favor of global cooling in the face of continued growth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

There is no evidence for warming-induced increases in extreme weather. Proponents of the CO2-induced global warming hypothesis often predict that extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, and hurricanes will become more numerous and/or extreme in a warmer world; however, there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, many studies have revealed that the numbers and intensities of extreme weather events have remained relatively constant over the last century of modest global warming or have actually declined. Costs of damages from these phenomena, however, have risen dramatically; but this phenomenon has been demonstrated to be the result of evolving societal, demographic and economic factors.

Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 are a boon to the biosphere. In lieu of global warming, a little of which would in all probability be good for the planet, where do the above considerations leave us? Simply with the biospheric benefits that come from the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment: enhanced plant growth, increased plant water use efficiency, greater food production for both people and animals, plus a host of other biological benefits too numerous to describe in this short statement.

And these benefits are not mere predictions. They are real. Already, in fact, they are evident in long-term tree-ring records, which reveal a history of increasing forest growth rates that have closely paralleled the progression of the Industrial Revolution. They can also be seen in the slow but inexorable spreading of woody plants into areas where only grasses grew before. In fact, the atmosphere itself bears witness to the increasing prowess of the entire biosphere in the yearly expanding amplitude of the its seasonal CO2 cycle. This oscillatory "breath of the biosphere" - its inhalation of CO2, produced by spring and summer terrestrial plant growth, and its exhalation of CO2, produced by fall and winter biomass decomposition - has been documented to be growing greater and greater each year in response to the ever-increasing growth stimulation provided by the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content......

Sorry, the above message got posted twice so I've deleted it the only way I could

Cont from previous ...

Atmospheric CO2 enrichment brings growth and prosperity to man and nature alike. This, then, is what we truly believe will be the result of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content: a reinvigorated biosphere characteristic of those prior periods of earth's history when the air's CO2 concentration was much higher than it is today, coupled with a climate not much different from that of the present. Are we right? Only time will tell. But one thing is certain now: there is much more real-world evidence for the encouraging scenario we paint here than for the doom-and-gloom predictions of apocalypse that are preached by those who blindly follow the manifestly less-than-adequate prognostications of imperfect climate models.

Our policy prescription relative to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is thus to leave well enough alone and let nature and humanity take their inextricably intertwined course. All indications are that both will be well served by the ongoing rise in atmospheric CO2.

Supporting references. This brief was written in 1998. References to the voluminous scientific literature that supports the many factual statements of this position paper may be found on our website - www.co2science.org - which we update weekly.

Jan wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 5:24pm:

muso wrote on Feb 24th, 2012 at 3:20pm: Jan - First explain that you know what you are arguing against and I'll take your post seriously, because from your post, I'm sorry but you don't have a clue. HUH! I thought I made it admirably clear I was arguing against the CO2 global warming crap, that is being bandied about by those who have an 'agenda'. Why did you mention it if you didn't know. Do YOU have a clue? Because judging from your post the only clue you have is how to make yourself look like a sceptic par excellence, and not a genuine enquirer. Quote: It's the first rule of debate that you need to understand what you're arguing about. Yes indeed it is ... So! what are you arguing about, and what is your understanding? [quote]Now are you saying that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas?

Please post a quote of me saying that ... People who have to twist words to suit their understanding of a statement belong in the ignoramous IQ category. 


Quote:

What's your understanding of radiative transfer?

What's yours?


Quote:

If you can't answer the basics, then you're not really qualified to say "Anyone who still believes the crap about CO2 etc are ignorant of our planet and how it works and has worked."

Can YOU answer the basics, and are you qualified to refute what I have stated?
I have stated the basics, you just can't read with the comprehension needed to nut it out, or research the answers for yourself. Please feel free to add your own version of facts, from a source that is not written by sceptics, and not just a denial of presented FACTS!!!


Quote:

In short, you're arguing from a position of proud ignorance

I speak from a good study regimen and information from extremely well qualified teachers for more than 20 years ... what do you base your 'opinions' about me on? The ignorance is yours not mine.

 
[/quote]

I doubt that very much.  The evidence is against low climate sensitivity. If you had been studying the subject you'd know what that is. Read through the posts on the top of this board. That explains some of the basics.

Changing ocean pH, and the reduction of calcification rates are probably the most serious issues that we'll have to contend with in the next 100 years or so.

Idso's article is not saying very much. It's saying that we have had higher temparatures and higher CO2 levels in the past. That's correct, but you have to go back millions of years to get CO2 levels similar to those of today. The issue nowadays is the sheer volume of carbon dioxide being added to the atmospheric inventory every year.   

Environmental management is my profession, so I know a bit more than the basics, such as how to derive the radiative forcing equations. I  have a sound understanding of the atmospheric physics.  I can also recognise nonsense and waffle when I see it, and the "Idso's" are incapable of writing anything else. 

ahahaha

muso wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 10:04pm:

I doubt that very much.  The evidence is against low climate sensitivity. If you had been studying the subject you'd know what that is. Read through the posts on the top of this board. That explains some of the basics.

Strewth!! Anyone can find this out "low climate sensitivity" is how much the earth’s average temperature will rise as a result of increased concentration of carbon dioxide", wow!!! a brilliant deduction from the PROMOTERS of The CO2 crap. You blokes can't figure out that global warming is a scam to make bigger and better profits and reduce our wealth even further ... When has the Zionist owned media ever told the truth, or given an unbiased report on anything proposed by government.


Quote:

Changing ocean pH, and the reduction of calcification rates are probably the most serious issues that we'll have to contend with in the next 100 years or so.

Do you even understand pH levels or what the cause/effects are? Oceans ABSORB CO2 and release OXYGEN. Phytoplankton that live near the ocean’s surface photosynthesize sunlight, ie. they use sunlight and carbon dioxide to make food. A byproduct of photosynthesis is oxygen.

Acidity (or low pH balance) of the oceans can be caused by a number of things, chemical and oil spills, sewage and waste disposal into the oceans just to name a few. low pH levels cause low calcification of the oceans and affect many oceanic organisms and can be triggered by warmer waters ... and water temperatures are controled "by the Sun".


Quote:

Idso's article is not saying very much. It's saying that we have had higher temparatures and higher CO2 levels in the past. That's correct, but you have to go back millions of years to get CO2 levels similar to those of today. The issue nowadays is the sheer volume of carbon dioxide being added to the atmospheric inventory every year.

What do you call "not very much"? More or less than you? Millions of years huh? Does that include the times of previous "pole sifts" when the equator was in a different locality. 


Quote:

Environmental management is my profession, so I know a bit more than the basics, such as how to derive the radiative forcing equations. I  have a sound understanding of the atmospheric physics.  I can also recognise nonsense and waffle when I see it, and the "Idso's" are incapable of writing anything else.

OMG!!!! A weatherman taking on "The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change" Go on! amaze us with your radiative forcing equations ... no copy paste now, in your own words and calculations will suffice!

Do your qualifications surpass Idso's?

Idso's current research focus is on carbon sequestration, but he remains actively involved in several other aspects of global and environmental change, including climatology and meteorology, along with their impacts on agriculture. Idso has published scientific articles on issues related to data quality, the growing season, the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2, world food supplies, coral reefs, and urban CO2 concentrations, the latter of which he investigated via a National Science Foundation grant as a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University. In addition, he has lectured in Meteorology at Arizona State University, and in Physical Geography at Mesa and Chandler-Gilbert Community Colleges. From 2001-2002, Idso served as Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy in St. Louis, MO.

Idso is a global warming skeptic. He is co-author with Fred Singer and Robert M. Carter of the reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a study group of global warming skeptics. Idso advocates that increasing atmosphere carbon dioxide concentrations will instead benefit plant growth.[4] With his name on 67 papers, Idso was the most represented author in a list of 938 peer reviewed papers alleged to be skeptical of global warming. The documents leaked in the Heartland Institute document leak indicate Idso is paid $11,600 per month by the Heartland Institute as part of its advocacy related to climate science. Idso is a science adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute.

The key to Idso's qualifications is the very telling "Non-governmental" ie. he isn't PAID by the government to say what THEY want said.

Anyone who goes along with anything governments say is to be taken with a grain of salt ... however I'm prepared to have you prove your qualifications and just how much you really know. Just leave out the weather BS as that can be refuted as well.

The sun controls the weather not CO2. ALL scientists knew this ... until manmade CO2 and Global warming became the governments agenda.

Cutting across the b/s:

Craig Idso:   

B.S. in Geography from Arizona State University
M.S. in Agronomy from the University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Ph.D. in Geography from Arizona State University; his thesis was on the amplitude of the difference between winter and summer atmospheric CO2 levels. (wow!)

His brother is Keith E. Idso. He's co-author of this "learned paper"  He states that he is Vice President of the Idso family's Phoenix, AZ "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change."

Keith has a B.S. in Agriculture with a major in Plant Sciences from the University of Arizona and his M.S. from the same institution with a major in Agronomy and Plant Genetics.

Poppa is Sherwood Idso. He started the famiy denialist business. He's also a learned farmer. (Ok Soil scientist). (He has a minor in Meterorology. )

Then there's Jalene Idso. She's the Operations Manager. I guess she'd be in charge of general farmin' , larnin' an cookin'.

So yes, I am much more qualified that any of the Idso clan. I'm not a meteorologist. That's a totally different discipline.  My first degree was in Chemistry, My second was in Environmental Science. That includes Atmospheric science, chemistry, climatology and hydrology plus such subjects as toxicology and legislation.

Geography and Agronomy degrees are not really relevent to atmospheric phenomena.

Anyone can form a private organisation called just about anything. I could form a business called the "Economic Analysis Foundation of Australia" if I wanted. It would look good on my business card to be President of the Economic Analysis Foundation even if I had no qualifications in that field.

Maybe I should call it the Centre for Galactic  Economics. Do you think that would be more impressive? 

muso wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 11:08am:

Cutting across the b/s:

Aww You didn't answer this: "Go on! amaze us with your radiative forcing equations ... no copy paste now, in your own words and calculations will suffice!"

I was so looking forward to your equations ... and watch you cut your own throat.

Oh and you also left the best part of Idso's profile:

Idso's current research focus is on carbon sequestration, but he remains actively involved in several other aspects of global and environmental change, including climatology and meteorology, along with their impacts on agriculture. Idso has published scientific articles on issues related to data quality, the growing season, the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2, world food supplies, coral reefs, and urban CO2 concentrations, the latter of which he investigated via a National Science Foundation grant as a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University. In addition, he has lectured in Meteorology at Arizona State University, and in Physical Geography at Mesa and Chandler-Gilbert Community Colleges. From 2001-2002, Idso served as Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy in St. Louis, MO.


Quote:

Maybe I should call it the Centre for Galactic  Economics. Do you think that would be more impressive?

Why not International Parsing processing of Climate Change? ... IPCC looks really cool.

I've been studying RF (infomally) for around 13 years through a friend who is a radio ham, his name is Kev Peacock, who studied the atmosphere and it's different levels, because he wanted to know everything about radio waves and what effect RF had on 'sending and receiving'. He wrote an ebook about 14 years ago, titled "something is wrong with the Sun". He also invented and manufactured a free standing one man erection  communications tower (no crane or assistance required to erect it). He is now retired.

Find him here http://users.spin.net.au/~aeitower/, and click on his page on Climate change ... talk to him and tell him Jan sent you.


 

It just goes to show that there's no fool like....

Anyway, what's the point of explaining atmospheric physics if you don't have the faintest idea what I'm talking about. It would be a one sided conversation. If you search my posts I already tried that once before.

What aspects of RF have you been studying? Propagation?

I was a radio ham for many years, and still hold some dx records for 70cm and 23cm ATV  using homebrew equipment back in the 70's.  I operated from GM, 5Z4, LA VK3 VK5 and VK6, and I agree with your friend's remark about cw, having completed many cw QSO's at 30wpm on 70cm bounced off the auroral curtain between GM and LA, SM and further afield. Typical signals were 51A, so that should impress your friend at least. ( I had a lot more on 2m, but that's commonplace)

Getting back on topic, the main interest is electromagnetic radiation in the  10-15 micron band, peaking around 350 Watts per square metre. Have you studied that yet? If so, what can you tell us about it? I don't know about  Solar Cycle 25, but there is something definitely wrong about the former.  It's being attentuated by something at a measurably higher rate now than it was in the 70's.

Would you say that it's bending or stretching? TX or RX? Near or Far?

I look forward to your responses. You won't be able to Google the answer, but anyone with half a clue and a knowledge of ham radio will understand what I'm asking.

muso wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 5:54pm:

It just goes to show that there's no fool like.... Anyway, what's the point of explaining atmospheric physics if you don't have the faintest idea what I'm talking about. It would be a one sided conversation. If you search my posts I already tried that once before.

I know enought about the interaction between air pollution and climate to satisfy myself that we are being conned by 'vested' interests and blindsided by scientific bullsh!t and indecipherable equations that the average person hasn't a hope of unravelling, hence the popular notion that manmade CO2 proliferation is the cause for 'warming'.

Tell me! Why did the last ice age end? Was it because the planet became warmer?  and if that's the case, to what do you attribute the planet's rise in temperature? Who (or what) produced all that CO2 way back then?


Quote:

What aspects of RF have you been studying? Propagation?

I never said I was a Ham radio operator I said My friend Kev was, who has been teaching me about THE SUN!!! Kev's actual profession is a Mechanical Engineer and has been into electronics for 30 years, his daughter is also a ham. I learned a smattering about ham radio through our friendship, and was introduced to another ham, Dan Simmonds from Pennsylvania, who came out and stayed for a few months, he's a tower manufacturer too http://www.anwireless.com/


Quote:

I was a radio ham for many years, and still hold some dx records for 70cm and 23cm ATV  using homebrew equipment back in the 70's.  I operated from GM, 5Z4, LA VK3 VK5 and VK6, and I agree with your friend's remark about cw, having completed many cw QSO's at 30wpm on 70cm bounced off the auroral curtain between GM and LA, SM and further afield. Typical signals were 51A, so that should impress your friend at least. ( I had a lot more on 2m, but that's commonplace)

Don't let your ego run away with you, Kev doesn't impress easily.


Quote:

Getting back on topic, the main interest is electromagnetic radiation in the  10-15 micron band, peaking around 350 Watts per square metre. Have you studied that yet? If so, what can you tell us about it? I don't know about  Solar Cycle 25, but there is something definitely wrong about the former.  It's being attentuated by something at a measurably higher rate now than it was in the 70's.

I haven't studied any radio operation, stop wagging your willy ... Ask Kev about cycle 25 he knows more than I ever could, I just know there's something awry about the Sun, which I learned from kev too.


Quote:

Would you say that it's bending or stretching? TX or RX? Near or Far?

Like I said I don't know about radio waves I'm content to ask questions of Kev when necessary, this hardly seems necessary.


Quote:

I look forward to your responses. You won't be able to Google the answer, but anyone with half a clue and a knowledge of ham radio will understand what I'm asking.

Don't be silly you can google anything these days you just have to know what to ask. But I'm not into copy paste, I like to put things in my own words, even if they are unintelligable to the inquirer.

73s Jan

Jan wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 9:16pm:

. I know enought about the interaction between air pollution and climate to satisfy myself that we are being conned by 'vested' interests and blindsided by scientific bullsh!t and indecipherable equations that the average person hasn't a hope of unravelling, hence the popular notion that manmade CO2 proliferation is the cause for 'warming'. Tell me! Why did the last ice age end? Was it because the planet became warmer?  and if that's the case, to what do you attribute the planet's rise in temperature? Who (or what) produced all that CO2 way back then?

If you don't understand about Milankovic cycles and the causes of glacial cycles, then I'm afraid your second paragraph contradicts the first. You have just demonstrated that you don't understand even the basics.

The first thing you need to understand is how the Earth's energy balance works. Obviously the source of the energy is the sun, and obviously variations in the Earth's orbit change the energy from the sun.  That's the starting point to understanding. Imagine the earth as a rock without an atmosphere. Change the distance to the sun and you change its temperature. If you put the atmosphere back in, you get exactly the same effect, but lots of other factors also come into play.

In fact we can estimate what the temperature of the Earth should be as a first approximation by considering solar irradiance alone. Do you think that first estimate would be on the high side or the low side? - and why?

I'm quite happy to try to explain the science to you if you lose the attitude.  Feel free to jump in if there is something you disagree with. The bit that gets my gander up is the arrogant ignorance. Try to admit that even in your 70's, you don't know everything, and listen for a change. You never know, you might actually realise that you've been led up the garden path. The best thing that could happen is that you might learn something. 

The Scientific perspective as taught in all educational institutes throughout the world is not as simplistic as you have been led to believe.

Before I begin, do you think that there is any slight possibility that you could be wrong? It's important because it will determine whether I continue or not.

Jan wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 9:16pm:

Don't be silly you can google anything these days you just have to know what to ask. But I'm not into copy paste, I like to put things in my own words, even if they are unintelligable to the inquirer. 73s Jan

... and that's the crux in this case.  Do you know what to ask? If you do, then you should easily be able to answer my questions.

Jan wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 9:16pm:

muso wrote on Feb 25th, 2012 at 5:54pm: Like I said I don't know about radio waves I'm content to ask questions of Kev when necessary, this hardly seems necessary. Aha! Now that statement alone infers that you think that the 10-15 micron band is classified as radio waves.  That reinforces to me that you don't actually have a clue. Please stop pretending that you do.  You said previously that you were studying RF. [quote author=012A254B0 link=1330043618/20#20 date=1330144791]I've been studying RF (infomally) for around 13 years through a friend who is a radio ham....

13 years, and you don't yet know the difference between radio waves and infrared radiation?  Maybe you should study something for which you have more aptitude, such as needlepoint.  Did this study of RF consist entirely of listening to demodulated RF on the 108-118MHz broadcast band?

muso wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 10:02pm:

Tell me! Why did the last ice age end? Was it because the planet became warmer?  and if that's the case, to what do you attribute the planet's rise in temperature? Who (or what) produced all that CO2 way back then? unquote If you don't understand about Milankovic cycles and the causes of glacial cycles, then I'm afraid your second paragraph contradicts the first. You have just demonstrated that you don't understand even the basics.

How does asking YOU what caused the last glacial period have anything to do with what I know? I understand the Milankovic 'theory', to know it is not a definitive answer. CO2 is only one of the causes for rising temperatures (or lowering). I may not be able to define my answers in acedemic gobbledegoop, (that other members can't understand either), but I DO understand principles, both ethics AND fundemental sources. 'Understanding' is the key to 'knowledge' not a learned by rote or scientific equations. All sciences are merely THEORIES anyway ... nothing is caste in concrete.


Quote:

The first thing you need to understand is how the Earth's energy balance works. Obviously the source of the energy is the sun, and obviously variations in the Earth's orbit change the energy from the sun.  That's the starting point to understanding. Imagine the earth as a rock without an atmosphere. Change the distance to the sun and you change its temperature. If you put the atmosphere back in, you get exactly the same effect, but lots of other factors also come into play.

Been there done that (yawn)

Don't be so arrogant in your attitude. I've already told you I was taught about the sun by Kev, I've read his book (he gave me the first copy when he completed it). As I said before I may not be able to give you "technical" answers but that does not mean I don't understand the PRINCIPLES. You tell me nothing here that Kev hasn't already taught me. Your big mistake is an over exercised ego that assumes no-one is as intelligent as yourself. It is YOU who is saying you have all the answers not me.   


Quote:

In fact we can estimate what the temperature of the Earth should be as a first approximation by considering solar irradiance alone. Do you think that first estimate would be on the high side or the low side? - and why?

Sigh! You tell me oh master. Considering we are 'theoretically' in the last throes of the interglacial (holocene) period it should be lower ... However as I said before it's all theory and doesn't take into consideration 'unknown' factors (or factors outside scientific academe).



Quote:

I'm quite happy to try to explain the science to you if you lose the attitude.  Feel free to jump in if there is something you disagree with. The bit that gets my gander up is the arrogant ignorance. Try to admit that even in your 70's, you don't know everything, and listen for a change. You never know, you might actually realise that you've been led up the garden path. The best thing that could happen is that you might learn something.

I'm always up to learning 'something new' providing it is in terms that everyone can understand and not just for 'schooled' academics.

I 'try' to reply to posts in language that EVERYONE can understand, I'm not out to showcase my ego, I'm here to learn as well as impart 'knowledge', and I only become 'arrogant' when someone deliberately tries to sabotage or ridicule what I have written, or replies arrogantly. ie. I treat as I find, and ridicule is one of my major dislikes.


Quote:

The Scientific perspective as taught in all educational institutes throughout the world is not as simplistic as you have been led to believe.

I never said it was??? In fact I consider it overly complicated, simple has the best chance of success, Simple = easy.


Quote:

Before I begin, do you think that there is any slight possibility that you could be wrong? It's important because it will determine whether I continue or not.

I'm not that arrogant, everyone can be wrong and I am prepared to admit when I am ... You are acting like a know it all professor about to 'educate' a first grader. Why not discuss or debate the pros and cons without all the huff and puff ... after all we are discussing a very debatable topic and we want 'everyone' reading this thread to 'understand' the pros and cons.

Jan wrote on Feb 26^th, 2012 at 10:33am:

Quote: In fact we can estimate what the temperature of the Earth should be as a first approximation by considering solar irradiance alone. Do you think that first estimate would be on the high side or the low side? - and why? Sigh! You tell me oh master. Considering we are 'theoretically' in the last throes of the interglacial (holocene) period it should be lower ... However as I said before it's all theory and doesn't take into consideration 'unknown' factors (or factors outside scientific academe).

It is lower because of the greenhouse effect. You don't appreciate the meaning of the word theory.  An understanding of such "theory" enables us to build computers and other electronic equipment.



Quote:

I'm always up to learning 'something new' providing it is in terms that everyone can understand and not just for 'schooled' academics.

I'll try to explain the mechanism of radiative transfer without using any maths. (Now that's not easy, but I'll try)


Quote:

I'm not out to showcase my ego, I'm here to learn as well as impart 'knowledge', and I only become 'arrogant' when someone deliberately tries to sabotage or ridicule what I have written, or replies arrogantly. ie. I treat as I find, and ridicule is one of my major dislikes.

You open yourself up for ridicule by remarks like this:

Quote:

As I said before I may not be able to give you "technical" answers but that does not mean I don't understand the PRINCIPLES.

So far I haven't delved into anything more than elementary school science. If you can't grasp that, then that means precisely  that you don't understand the principles.

If I started talking in diatribes about Tolstoy and it became apparent that I the only thing I knew about him was that he was a Russian author, then I would expect to be ridiculed too.

If I see arrogant nonsense, my response can appear arrogant. I realise that this is non-productive, so try not to stir me up  ;D


Quote:

I never said it was??? In fact I consider it overly complicated, simple has the best chance of success, Simple = easy.

You implied that it was, by this comment:


Quote:

Who (or what) produced all that CO2 way back then?

Quote:

[quote]Before I begin, do you think that there is any slight possibility that you could be wrong? It's important because it will determine whether I continue or not.

I'm not that arrogant, everyone can be wrong and I am prepared to admit when I am ... You are acting like a know it all professor about to 'educate' a first grader. Why not discuss or debate the pros and cons without all the huff and puff ... after all we are discussing a very debatable topic and we want 'everyone' reading this thread to 'understand' the pros and cons.
[/quote]

You're acting as if you know all the answers. Here's an example:


Quote:

I know enought about the interaction between air pollution and climate to satisfy myself that we are being conned by 'vested' interests and blindsided by scientific bullsh!t and indecipherable equations that the average person hasn't a hope of unravelling,

That's a very arrogant and ignorant assertion. I hope you realise that now.  I assure you that you don't know enough. Let's be frank. You don't even know the difference between radio waves and infrared. So let's continue in a non-judgemental way. I'll attempt to fill in the gaps in your knowledge as time permits.

Do you understand where the greenhouse effect acts? Try to answer honestly and I'll be kind.

also - Explain what you understand by the term "Water dewpoint"

I need to know what concepts you understand first. Also ask your friend to come on here. It's about time we had somebody with some technical knowledge.

muso wrote on Feb 26^th, 2012 at 11:08am:

[That's a very arrogant and ignorant assertion. I hope you realise that now.  I assure you that you don't know enough. Let's be frank. You don't even know the difference between radio waves and infrared. So let's continue in a non-judgemental way. I'll attempt to fill in the gaps in your knowledge as time permits. Do you understand where the greenhouse effect acts? Try to answer honestly and I'll be kind. also - Explain what you understand by the term "Water dewpoint" I need to know what concepts you understand first. Also ask your friend to come on here. It's about time we had somebody with some technical knowledge.

O' f'chrissake!!! you don't even know what I have said, you answer NOTHING and then demand I answer questions that have nothing to do with anything discussed before.

I received an email from Kev after I forwarded a previous post to him. Here's his response, in full and in a way even a child can understand.

---

LOL - Your "friend" is a little bit "over the top" mate - the sort that loves to use the little bit he knows to make himself appear smarter than those who are not familiar with terminology.

He is saying he worked aural scatter from Scotland (GM), Sweden (SM) and Norway (LA) and he has operated from Scotland, Kenya (5Z4), Victoria (VK3), South Australia (VK5) and Western Australia (VK6) - but no mention of a QLD (VK4) licence.

You can Google information about these frequencies and some of the studies about them - they do form part of the cosmic radiation so nothing special about them - albeit they are usefully for cancer treatment in controlled exposures.

Cosmic radiation covers the spectrum at what we call frequencies ranging from "daylight to dark" - which simply means the range of frequencies present in the radiation from the Sun go from the lowest end of the spectrum at the longest wavelength to the high end of the spectrum at the shortest wave length.

If you take strong "sunlight" it can be measured to around 1 thousand watts per square meter of "irradiance" - in other words it is very "bright light".

If you analyse the "sunlight" you will find that around 500 >< watts is in the infrared spectrum - about 450 >< watts is what we actually see (visible light - and this is what you friend is talking about with the mention of 350 watts/sq m) - my studies were more focused on the lower wattage range around 32 >< watts - which is of course the ultraviolet range  - so when I studied the effects of the various frequencies it was to ascertain the effect on the ionosphere in regard to the way the cosmic radiation in effect made the ionosphere more dense and a suitable "reflector" of the radio wave. The side benefit was discovering the way it also caused heating of the atmosphere - this being a by product of the wat certain amounts were either absorded or emitted - when the normal absorption emmission was changed by increased solar activity (producing the higher level EUV) we had accelerated warming - when the EUV reduced we had a reduction in heating.

One of the biggest problems has been the relatively short term of data collection that we have - we have to rely heavily on ice core sampling to give us an expanded time frame but we cannot rely on it because we know the ice cores are not in fact a true recovery because we really do not know precisely how much ice has already melted  - so it has been what is termed "inexact science" complimented by some "educated guesswork"

Wavelength is usually given in meters which is more easily understood - ie people tune their radios to the "40m" band or the "2m" band - then once we get above that we go to centimeters such as he mentioned "70cm"  and then "23cm" - once we get shorter than 23cm we usually switch to speaking in MHz (MegaHertz) we can of course use the MHz. designation for any wavelength up to where we change to GigaHertz - for example if you were watching satellite TV you would most likely be translating a signal of 2.4 gigahertz.

My studies led me to eventually concentrate mainly on the spectrum at the UV (ultraviolet) and EUV (extreme ultraviolet) frequencies - it is these frequencies that have a very pronounced effect on the atmosphere of our planet - it is their specific "nuclear reaction" with the nitrogen atom that is most important.

Now your friend asks you about "bending/slowing" - well the fact is all light can be bent and it is as it enters the planets atmosphere - it is passing from a medium with very little density into a far more dense medium - some of the spectrum will proceed with deflection while a great deal of it is refracted. That is simple high school physics - you probably did some basic experiments with crystals and prisms and mirrors to demonstrate that light does not nescessarily travel in straight lines.

Out in space the cosmic radiation is spiralling outward because of the rotation of the Sun and the effects of mass attraction (gravity).

Astronomy makes use of the infrared spectrum to form images of distant planets etc.

Ok hope that helps a bit Jan.

Your friend would be better off helping you learn instead of trying to big note himself.

Stay safe and keep well mate.

Love and hugs from all of us.

Kev.

Quote:

You can Google information about these frequencies and some of the studies about them - they do form part of the cosmic radiation so nothing special about them - albeit they are usefully for cancer treatment in controlled exposures.

er no. 10-15 microns is actually infrared as I said previously. Most of the "cosmic radiation" is not actually electromagnetic radiation at all, with the exception of x-rays and gamma radiation. X-rays have a wavelength measured in nanometres or sub nanometres.


Quote:

If you analyse the "sunlight" you will find that around 500 >< watts is in the infrared spectrum - about 450 >< watts is what we actually see (visible light - and this is what you friend is talking about with the mention of 350 watts/sq m)

Oh boy- Worse than I thought. He's a looney or he's suffering from advanced Alzheimers.  I think he means nanometres.

I'll have a look at his website if I get a chance. If that was a sample of his "knowledge" I hate to think what's on there. Maybe this site would be interested in featuring it:

http://www.crank.net/

I'll refer it if it's funny enough.

muso wrote on Feb 26^th, 2012 at 9:54am:

Jan wrote on Feb 25th, 2012 at 9:16pm: muso wrote on Feb 25th, 2012 at 5:54pm: Like I said I don't know about radio waves I'm content to ask questions of Kev when necessary, this hardly seems necessary. Aha! Now that statement alone infers that you think that the 10-15 micron band is classified as radio waves.  That reinforces to me that you don't actually have a clue. Please stop pretending that you do.  You said previously that you were studying RF. [quote author=012A254B0 link=1330043618/20#20 date=1330144791]I've been studying RF (infomally) for around 13 years through a friend who is a radio ham....* no mention here about RF propagation We were talking about RADIATIVE FORCING. 13 years, and you don't yet know the difference between radio waves and infrared radiation?  Maybe you should study something for which you have more aptitude, such as needlepoint.  Did this study of RF consist entirely of listening to demodulated RF on the 108-118MHz broadcast band?

Quote: "LOL - Your "friend" is a little bit "over the top" mate - the sort that loves to use the little bit he knows to make himself appear smarter than those who are not familiar with terminology."

Is this why you are deliberately focussing on what I have already said .. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT RADIO WAVES, (How many times must I say it before you understand what I've actually said??) ... and that is NOT what we were discussing here anyway ... It's global warming ... remember, RADIATIVE FORCING? YOU bought it up then switched to something you thought you could shine at ... The SUN outshines you Sunshine.?

Like I said you don't understand ENGLISH or how to read posts. I never answered you about radio waves. As soon as I mentioned I have been taught (most of what I know, but not ALL) from a FRIEND who is a ham radio operator (ie. NOT me, OR being instructed on radio operation).

Kev's interests and knowledge are wide and NOT resticted to radio as you seem to be fixated on ... you jumped up and down with glee and decided to concentrate on that aspect and air your ego because YOU are a HAM (in both senses).

I thought you were an egotist before now but now I KNOW.

muso wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 3:38pm:

Quote: You can Google information about these frequencies and some of the studies about them - they do form part of the cosmic radiation so nothing special about them - albeit they are usefully for cancer treatment in controlled exposures. [quote]er no. 10-15 microns is actually infrared as I said previously. Most of the "cosmic radiation" is not actually electromagnetic radiation at all, with the exception of x-rays and gamma radiation. X-rays have a wavelength measured in nanometres or sub nanometres.

Are you really that thick? ... Kev said NOTHING about 10-15 microns ... and neither did I, YOU DID. I didn't send him the post you refer to, just the one you started airing your technical lingo about how much you say you know.


Quote:

If you analyse the "sunlight" you will find that around 500 >< watts is in the infrared spectrum - about 450 >< watts is what we actually see (visible light - and this is what you friend is talking about with the mention of 350 watts/sq m) unquote] Oh boy- Worse than I thought. He's a looney or he's suffering from advanced Alzheimers.  I think he means nanometres.

Ummm are you talking about "Sunlight", or Infrared HEATERS (like the ones I have in my infrared sauna)?? I have no idea as I don't study equations.


Quote:

I'll have a look at his website if I get a chance. If that was a sample of his "knowledge" I hate to think what's on there. Maybe this site would be interested in featuring it: http://www.crank.net/ I'll refer it if it's funny enough.

Ok .. I've sent your post on to Kev to read  :-*

Here is Kev's reply LOL

Seems even dumb ol' me saw the difference between UV and EUV to infrared.

---

What can I say Jan - the clown is just that - a clown.

You can easily confirm what I said and there is literally thousands upon thousands of sites with the correct information that blows your mate right out of the water and exposes how little he really understands.

But to see the way he responds to the real facts is proof enough of just how little he really knows and ample proof that he should not even be involved in discussing global warming .......
 
Here is a first try google info which came up on Wiki.

Basic info that most of us learned at school - obviously your sparring partner slept through the lessons ...... LOL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared

My distinct reference to ionising radiation seems to have sparked a knee jerk reaction when in fact I specifically mention my interest in UV and EUV ?? so I really do not see why he has adopted such an aggressive stance.

Anyway - as I said jan - I have no interest in getting involved in discussions with people who barely understand the subject. I have too many fish to catch and too many sapphires to liberate ...... have fun mate.

---

As I keep telling everyone, I don't debate what I don't 'understand', and to those who call me a 'know it all' I'm the first one to admit I know 'nothing' ... in fact the more I learn the more I realise just how little any of us know.

If I don't "UNDERSTAND" I say so ... there is no shame in not knowing everything and admitting as much.

Look, just about every line he types betrays the fact that he doesn't have a clue about what he's talking.  It should have been obvious that I was referring to transmitted infrared (TX not RX) the LWIR absorption is due to bending of the carbon dioxide molecule and the 350 W/m2 refers to the mean global power per unit area of transmitted infrared. As for my question about near or far, the answer is "neither".  Anyone who asserts that he can comment with any authority on atmospheric science would be aware than we talk about near infrared and far infrared. 10 microns falls into the category of mid infrared.


Quote:

If I don't "UNDERSTAND" I say so

Well, not on your posting history. You said that you had studied RF (Radio Frequency) for 13 years. I believe that was an untruth , because you obviously don't understand anything about RF In fact you don't even understand what they teach to Year 9's these days. Perhaps you meant that you had been studying "Roger Federer" or "Renal  Failurer" for 13 years)

If you make false statements, then expect them to be rebutted. I gave you an opportunity to explain what aspect of RF you had been studying. If you didn't even use equations, then I'd suggest that your "study" was trivial and probably restricted to listening to John Laws on the radio. That doesn't count as a study of RF. 

As for Kev, I suggest that he's probably scared to admit his ignorance. Maybe at one stage in his life he knew some basics, but that is obviously not the case now. If he wants to defend himself, let him come online.

I have no idea what  the relevence of  UV and nitrogen might be to this discussion, which is about Global Warming. I realise that there is excitation of ionic nitrogen in the EUV in the upper atmosphere, but what has that got to do with the topic given that there is very little actual thermal radiation in that part of the spectrum? 


Quote:

As I keep telling everyone, I don't debate what I don't 'understand',

You might keep telling everyone that, but I don't believe you. Your original post says otherwise.

muso wrote on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 3:38pm:

Quote: You can Google information about these frequencies and some of the studies about them - they do form part of the cosmic radiation so nothing special about them - albeit they are usefully for cancer treatment in controlled exposures. er no. 10-15 microns is actually infrared as I said previously. Most of the "cosmic radiation" is not actually electromagnetic radiation at all, with the exception of x-rays and gamma radiation. X-rays have a wavelength measured in nanometres or sub nanometres. [quote]If you analyse the "sunlight" you will find that around 500 >< watts is in the infrared spectrum - about 450 >< watts is what we actually see (visible light - and this is what you friend is talking about with the mention of 350 watts/sq m)

Oh boy- Worse than I thought. He's a looney or he's suffering from advanced Alzheimers.  I think he means nanometres.

I'll have a look at his website if I get a chance. If that was a sample of his "knowledge" I hate to think what's on there. Maybe this site would be interested in featuring it:

http://www.crank.net/

I'll refer it if it's funny enough.[/quote]


edit: It's funny enough. I referred it. I'll give you the link when it's published. 

( The truth is out there, folks )  ;D

http://users.spin.net.au/~aeitower/Images/BookCov.jpg

muso wrote on Feb 28^th, 2012 at 5:43am:

Look, just about every line he types betrays the fact that he doesn't have a clue about what he's talking.  It should have been obvious that I was referring to transmitted infrared (TX not RX) the LWIR absorption is due to bending of the carbon dioxide molecule and the 350 W/m2 refers to the mean global power per unit area of transmitted infrared. As for my question about near or far, the answer is "neither".  Anyone who asserts that he can comment with any authority on atmospheric science would be aware than we talk about near infrared and far infrared. 10 microns falls into the category of mid infrared.

Nothing you say is obvious and you 'DISTORT' so much it's near impossible to answer .. you again 'use'  your BS TERMINOLOGY to fog-up your mistakes, or  can't answer intelligably.  You're a show off who thinks he's smarter than everyone else.. Well you've outsmarted yourself this time by giving me the opportunity to 'review' everything YOU have said.

YOU wrote: reply 12: Feb 12th ...
Jan - First explain that you know what you are arguing against and I'll take your post seriously, because from your post, I'm sorry but you don't have a clue.

I replied: ...
HUH! I thought I made it admirably clear I was arguing against the CO2 global warming crap, that is being bandied about by those who have an 'agenda'. Do YOU have a clue? Because judging from your post the only clue you have is how to make yourself look like a sceptic par excellence, and not a genuine enquirer.

in that same post You have changed FORCING to Transfer ie  ...What's your understanding of radiative transfer? 
At no time was I referring to TRANSFER to either you or Kev.

How very clever of you Mr MODERATOR. Do you do this often to try and cover up your mistakes ...

How do I know you changed the wording?? ...because when I replied in reply 18: Feb 35th ... I said ....
A weatherman taking on "The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change" Go on! amaze us with your radiative forcing equations. I repeated it again in Reply 20. Feb. 25th "Aww You didn't answer this: "Go on! amaze us with your radiative forcing equations."

When I answered you re Kev I used RF (the correct abreviation for radiative FORCING) NOT transfer, not RT ... because YOU ASKED ME WHAT I KNEW ABOUT RADIATIVE FORCING ... NOT TRANSFER.

I stand by what I have said and also my OPINIONS.

YOU'RE A CHEAT AND A LIAR AND I'M DONE WITH YOU, AND THIS FORUM ... ANY MOD WHO CHANGES PEOPLES POSTS and an admin. allows it IS BEYOND DISHONEST.

It's a waste of time discussing TRUTH on a forum who's Administrator and Mods don't have a clue what honesty means ... This forum is designed to "Keep the people dumbed down ... a typical ZIONIST trick to keep real knowledge away from anyone who might make a difference.

You can bet this message wont be here for long ... it's too truthful to last the distance. In fact I'll be very surprised if all the messages aren't deleted. But I've kept a copy of them all.

For the record, I have not modified any of your posts. That's quite a strong allegation, but fortunately it can be verified as fasle.  You can tell if a post has been modified by the record at the end.
It looks something like this: « Last Edit: Yesterday at 6:03am by muso »   There are none of those on your posts, except where you have edited them yourself.

I'm pretty edit: absolutely sure that I didn't change anything. I sometimes click the modify button in mistake instead of the quote button, but I usually reverse out of that if I do it. So go back through your posts and show me where you think I've changed something. As a rule I only censor posts if they are particularly offensive, and I tolerate most things that are posted.


I didn't change Radiative Forcing to Radiative Transfer either for what it's worth.  I have a bad habit of adding extra bits to a post, usually within the first hour or so of posting, but I certainly didn't change anything to make you look stupid. If a poster already has that ability by their own words, why should I?

RF is not a very common abbreviation for radiative forcing. The most common interpretation of RF is Radio Frequency.

I don't change my opinion though. It is almost impossible to study either radiative forcing or radiative transfer without a pretty sound grounding in mathematics, so I still think it's an untruth that you've been studying Radiative Forcing.   

As for your mate, his theories on global warming are as "out there" as his conspiracy theories on alien mutilations and abductions, and the allegation of a global conspiracy. In short, he's a crank. He must realise that.

muso wrote on Feb 29^th, 2012 at 7:55am:

For the record, I have not modified any of your posts. That's quite a strong allegation, but fortunately it can be verified as fasle.  You can tell if a post has been modified by the record at the end. It looks something like this: « Last Edit: Yesterday at 6:03am by muso »   There are none of those on your posts, except where you have edited them yourself.

Your a LIAR. As a moderator you can change what you want I have been on these kinds of forums for 15 years (since I've have had the internet) and am very good friends with both Administrator and Moderator on an American forum, also Kev owned his own forum which is how I first met him.


Quote:

I didn't change Radiative Forcing to Radiative Transfer either for what it's worth.  I have a bad habit of adding extra bits to a post, usually within the first hour or so of posting, but I certainly didn't change anything to make you look stupid. If a poster already has that ability by their own words, why should I?

LIAR I never even LOOKED at what TRANSFER opposed to FORCING meant but I checked my archived files for FORCING because that was what you ASKED me what I knew about it, ie. Reply 10 Feb 24th What's your understanding of radiative forcing?

I have NOTHING in my files on TRANSFER. And my memory is excellent ... nowhere in ANY of my posts have I mentioned transfer, ONLY FORCING, and nowhere does my posts say that ... BUT YOU DID! in fact you made a big deal of how wrong I was and how wrong Kev was by using that without stating it ... ie. COVERTLY, hoping we wouldn't pick up on it. YOU where the one to make statements that were completely opposed to what we were actually talking about.


Quote:

RF is not a very common abbreviation for radiative forcing. The most common interpretation of RF is Radio Frequency.

Aha!! Is that where your panic set in and you reaslised your mistake and had to make some "ADJUSTMENTS. Tell that to this blogger http://atoc.colorado.edu/~seand/headinacloud/?p=204 at the site I have on file (one of many). Which is the site I looked up and the reason I abbreviated Radiative Forcing to RF.

snip...Radiative Forcing, or RF, is specifically defined as the “change in net irradiance at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values.’” In layman’s terms, RF refers to an imbalance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation that causes the Earth’s radiative balance to stray away from its normal state. This straying causes changes in global temperatures. The concept of Radiative Forcing is useful because a linear relationship has been determined between the global mean equilibrium surface temperature changes and the amount of RF. Furthermore, the units of Radiative Forcing are watts per square meter, and, if the value is positive (negative), it has a warming (cooling) effect on the climate...Unsnip.

Notice that he uses the same language Kev used to explain it and much different to you. And without using Mathematics.


Quote:

I don't change my opinion though. It is almost impossible to study either radiative forcing or radiative transfer without a pretty sound grounding in mathematics, so I still think it's an untruth that you've been studying Radiative Forcing.

 

Gee that's strange, almost everyone else with knowledge of RF does a pretty good job of explaining it without the MATHS. Mathematics are only really necessary if you want to CALCULATE changes etc WE weren't doing that and it wasn't necessary, and Kev's maths would stand up to yours because he's a qualified Engineer.


Quote:

As for your mate, his theories on global warming are as "out there" as his conspiracy theories on alien mutilations and abductions, and the allegation of a global conspiracy. In short, he's a crank. He must realise that.

OH gee another twist and turn to your pathetic reply. Kev is by far the smarter one when it comes to global warming, he's never been paid by zionist corporations, he made his living from his own company where it was necessary to study the effects of THE SUN.

Are you saying there is NO Global conspiracy?

As for Kev's other pursuits, his OPINIONS, based on proven FACTS and personal observations are a far cry from the religious community who believe in an invisible man who made the heavens and Earth, knows everything about everybody, and answers everyones requests.

Come to think of it .. perhaps you should try contacting him, His knowledge of global warming would have to equal yours ... After all he did make the universe ...

Quote:
RF is not a very common abbreviation for radiative forcing. The most common interpretation of RF is Radio Frequency.

Oh!! Here's another Site ...
http://www.co2offsetresearch.org/aviation/RF.html

Radiative Forcing
Introduction to RF
RFs from Aircraft Emissions
What Radiative Forcing Does Not Show

OMG!! another explanation without the maths.

Jan wrote on Feb 29^th, 2012 at 10:45am:

Gee that's strange, almost everyone else with knowledge of RF does a pretty good job of explaining it without the MATHS. Mathematics are only really necessary if you want to CALCULATE changes etc WE weren't doing that and it wasn't necessary, and Kev's maths would stand up to yours because he's a qualified Engineer.

First of all I'm just a moderator on this forum. All forum software is different in some way, but any changes I make are time stamped, just as any changes you make are.

I'd love to see you derive the radiative forcing equation for CO2 without using maths  ;D 

If you can't derive it, the only thing you can do is talk about it in general terms, or you can apply the principles to measure the magnitude of the effect. I liked your cut and paste by the way. It comes straight from the IPCC AR4 Working Group I report.  Are you sure you want to trust that? I thought they were all supposed to be part of an alien consipracy or something (the truth is out there)

OK, so that particular part is accurate enough, but that's about all you can say about it without delving into maths.

I don't think there is any point talking any further, because unless somebody jumps in to defend you, I don't think you have any remaining credibility. The Global Moderators on this forum know that I can't change anything on your post without a time stamp appearing, and I can say categorically that I changed nothing on any of your posts. 

As far as your friend, I don't care if he's a qualified engineer.  He hasn't made any argument as to why he thinks there is a flaw, and you've copied that. He just states that as his opinion, just as it's my opinion looking at his website that he's a grade A nutcase.

The only difference is that my opinion is based on clear evidence whereas his opinion is not. 

Gotta watch those zionist corporations.  ;D

Here's a previous explanation. Tell me which part you disagree with. If you need to phone a friend to find out what your opinion is, go for your ginger.


muso wrote on Aug 15^th, 2010 at 6:03pm:

OK, Let's take a CO2 molecule in the upper atmosphere. Longwave infrared radiation from the Earth hits that molecule, it absorbs the radiation and the electrons in the C=O double bonds get excited. At certain frequencies, you get something like a symmetrical stretching, at other frequencies you get an asymmetrical stretching, and you can also get bending of the molecule for other IR wavelengths. The energy is then given off in all directions. A bit like a dandelion seed head. The stem represents the original photon of IR radiation and the seeds represent the possible directions that the IR can be re-emitted. What that means is that some of the energy ends up going back down to Earth while some of it still heads out into space. If you had no CO2 molecules (or other GHG's) then all the longwave radiation would head out to space. The presence of Greenhouse gases means that a portion of that heat energy stays in the Earth's lower atmosphere, causing the temperature to be warmer than it would otherwise. If we look at the atmosphere as a large series of layers, we can express this effect mathematically starting from the ground and working your way up through progressively thinner and thinner atmosphere. Above a certain level, the water vapour component becomes negligible because the colder the atmosphere, the lower its water dewpoint.  I have a feeling that you wouldn't benefit from the maths, but I'll go through it if you like. People have this preconception about anthropogenic global warming being somehow different from the natural  greenhouse effect. It isn't. Basically if you add CO2 to the atmosphere, you'll get an increased warming effect. OK, so far so good. The equation that expresses the effect that greenhouse gases have on heat transfer is called the Radiative Forcing equation. ∆F =      5.35 ln(C/Co) in Watts per square metre. Notice that the relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic (ln is the natural log) so that increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect. That's why we generally talk in terms of warming effect for a doubling of CO2. There are similar Radiative forcing equations for the other greenhouse gases. Of course that's not everything yet. If it was just for CO2, you'd get a warming of around 1 degree for a doubling of CO2 concentration.

muso wrote on Feb 29^th, 2012 at 3:35pm:

First of all I'm just a moderator on this forum. All forum software is different in some way, but any changes I make are time stamped, just as any changes you make are.

Yeah right! And it was YOUR OWN post altered first ... you can deny all you like but you know and I know you asked me what I knew about FORCING not transfer, simple as that. At no time did I even think about transfer, or answer it, because that is not what you asked. and I can't access your posts as you can mine.

Denial is a mechanism of ego defence in which an individual under threat may, deny the existence of an object, situation, person, or threat ... to top it off you think derision and sick humour will save your ego. So deny, deny, deny, but at the end of the day you still know you're an ar$ehole.


Quote:

the only thing you can do is talk about it in general terms,

 
That's precisely what we were doing ... but you need to air your so-called mathematical genius and show everyone how smart you are, answering in simple terms is just not your bag and you have to big note yourself. Your pathetic.


Quote:

I liked your cut and paste by the way. It comes straight from the IPCC AR4 Working Group I report.

 

that's precisely why I used it ... you're not very astute at observation for a genius of your perceived talent.


Quote:

OK, so that particular part is accurate enough, but that's about all you can say about it without delving into maths.

Magnanimity at this late stage how quaint.


Quote:

The Global Moderators on this forum know that I can't change anything on your post without a time stamp appearing, and I can say categorically that I changed nothing on any of your posts.

Well not without their support and assistance anyway. and I say Categorically that you DID ... I note you don't say anything about changing YOUR post. 


Quote:

The only difference is that my opinion is based on clear evidence whereas his opinion is not.

LOL even the government paid 'experts?' show more humility than you do and admit 'they' could be wrong ... as I said previously nothing is caste in concrete.


Quote:

Gotta watch those zionist corporations

Nice to see you make the connection  ;)


Quote:

I don't think there is any point talking any further, because unless somebody jumps in to defend you, I don't think you have any remaining credibility.

It's your credibility that's on the line. My credibility can be found in the posts. Truth needs no defence.

Jan wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 11:25am:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 24th, 2012 at 11:00am: Youve stumbled on the latest denier reason why humans cant possibly be blamed, which is based on nothing more than a thought fart by some knob jockey. Anyone who still believes the crap about CO2 etc are ignorant of our planet and how it works and has worked. We are carbon based creatures, and the entire planet WORKS on carbon. Previous ice ages have been in response to carbon increases ... ie When there were NO carbon producing industries, cattle stations, energy production, waste disposal, ad infinitum ... That's right there were NO human CO2 production activities THEN, it was a NATURAL cycle of our planet OR it could be the perturbations of other celestial bodies passing our orbital path, but CO2 is the brainchild of the elite as another 'diversion' and a way to create more economic woes by emptying OUR pockets and filling theirs.

RATES OF CHANGE, GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWD!

:-[ :-[ :-[  :D ;D :D :D :D ;D  ;) ;)

Jan wrote on Feb 29^th, 2012 at 6:59pm:

Magnanimity at this late stage how quaint.

No No. Please don't misinterpret. That magnanimity was reserved only for that quotation from the IPCC. I still hold you in total contempt.

Sorry if I confused you.

Jan wrote on Feb 29^th, 2012 at 6:59pm:

Yeah right! And it was YOUR OWN post altered first ... you can deny all you like but you know and I know you asked me what I knew about FORCING not transfer, simple as that. At no time did I even think about transfer, or answer it, because that is not what you asked. and I can't access your posts as you can mine.

In this context, it's a trivial difference anyway. If I ask you what you "know about radiative transfer", it's another way of asking what you know about radiative forcing. It's obvious that you haven't grasped that point, so I conclude that you have very little understanding of the basic principles. (fail)

You seem obsessed on this point as if it has some bearing.

Now tell me -

Read my explanation in my own words that explains the crux of global warming, which is related to radiative forcing.

Then read the article by the Idso's and tell me where that specifically challenges that central principle. It doesn't.

Let me give an example to illustrate my point.

Argument: 


Quote:

Indirect measurements of OH using methyl chloroform have established that the globally weighted average OH concentration in the troposphere is roughly 106 radicals per cubic centimetre (Prinn et al., 2001; Krol and Lelieveld, 2003). A similar average concentration is derived using 14CO (Quay et al., 2000), although the spatial weighting here is different. Note that methods to infer global or hemispheric average OH concentrations may be insensitive to compensating regional OH changes such as OH increases over continents and decreases over oceans (Lelieveld et al., 2002). In addition, the quoted absolute OH concentrations (but not their relative trends) depend on the choice of weighting (e.g., Lawrence et al., 2001). While the global average OH concentration appears fairly well defined by these indirect methods, the temporal trends in OH are more difficult to discern since they require long-term measurements, optimal inverse methods and very accurate calibrations, model transports and methyl chloroform emissions data. From AGAGE methyl chloroform measurements,

Counter argument :


Quote:

It was bloody cold in Paramatta yesterday , so all that's crap and part of a global conspiracy. CO2 is good for your health. I have some for breakfast every morning. Don't talk technical sh1t with me mate. You're just trying to confuse me.

Now in that example, like Idso's and Kev's, it doesn't address (any of) the central points of the argument made. Therefore it's meaningless, except as a work of comedy.


Quote:

[quote]The only difference is that my opinion is based on clear evidence whereas his opinion is not.

LOL even the government paid 'experts?' show more humility than you do and admit 'they' could be wrong ... as I said previously nothing is caste in concrete.[/quote]

So now you're extrapolating my comment. I said that I have clear evidence.  Clear evidence is not a statement of infallibility, it's just superior to a position of "no evidence".


By the way, and I don't want to appear totally negative here, please don't think that I am totally unappreciative of Kev's Website. I am a great fan of Monty Python too.  The bit about asking for money for copies of his e-Book was hilarious. If you personally paid the $15, could you just let me into the secret of which world leaders are actually alien life-forms. It would be good to know that kind of stuff.

Jan wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 4:47pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Feb 24th, 2012 at 2:34pm: Oh Jan, you seem such a lovely young lady, but where have you got these hair brained idea's.  ? No1. I am not a 'Young' lady. I am 71 years old, have two children, 6 grandchildren, and 5 Great grandchildren, no grey hair and the pic for my avatar is me taken mid 2006 just after I was cleared of cancer, which I beat using "Mother Nature's therapies",

Sweet. I bet you turned a few heads in your day.

Quote:

[quote]co2 levels fluctuating widely is all part of mother nature, but mother nature doesnt give two hoots about us humans, as it doesnt about any animals. Good old mother nature causes mass extinctions for a  laugh.

Gee that's what I said. Mother Nature does what she needs to do to keep this planet healthy, just as she provides everything we need for us to be healthy .. but most people these days would rather listen to half educated idiots ... and follow Doctors orders.

[/quote]
As a doctor I'll ignore that comment. But then I am only as much a doctor as captain kirk was a captain.

But I think you will find a lot a friends on these forums who share your consipracy theories, so youve come to the right place.


Quote:

[quote]I dont want to be extinct, or even have our population halve because of the wars and famine that will trigger.

Get over it, because the elite have been engineering our population reduction (to 500,000,000) for many years, that's a reduction of 90%, not 50%
[/quote]
Hmmm. Its very kind of you to expose yet another conspiracy theory. I never realised. Who are these evil "elites".  ?

Quote:

[quote]Co2 has never risen as fast is has now save for the odd massive impact from a meteror.  Co2, and temperature are rising simply because we are unleashing all this dormant co2 thats been kept undergound as coal and oil.  Its us thats doing us.

Errr where did you hear that, were you around before the last ice age .. or the one before that?
[/quote]
I think coal and oil forming millions of years ago, is pretty standard stuff..... unless you have another intreging consipracy theory to enlighten us with ?

Quote:

[quote]Of course mother nature dont give a stuff who's doing it.   The world will carry on long after humans are extinct, but thats not my concern. As a human, the world is only useful to me while humans exists.

She doesn't give a stuff because she is doing it herself, why not try and do something for yourself and follow her, instead of believing the people who really do want your extinction
[/quote]
Please tell us how best to follow her in a warmed world. What is the best stategy to be the 1 in the "1 in 6" to survive ?.   Should I build a bunker ?
progressiveslol has already offered me one of his spare tin foil hats, so I'm ok on that front.

Quote:

[quote]We can stop mass extinction of us and other species if we want to. We have a choice.

Do we now!!! So what's YOUR choice. I made my choice more than twenty years ago and the things that I learned about nature and the Elite are still proving to be accurate.

[/quote]

I need to show me the way, oh wise one.
Are you from outer space ?   i would be an absolute honour to be among the first to make contact, even if through an internet forum.

So just one final point where you can try to rescue your credibility. 

Do you understand the basics of Atmospheric science? (in other words what you're arguing against)

If you don't understand the basics, how can you argue against it?

To rescue your credibility, you can explain in your own words:

1. The case that you believe is being put forward by climatologists and other atmospheric scientists the world over.

2. Explain the rationale of why your opinion differs from theirs.  Don't go into any detail. Just explain why you believe that, and what evidence you have for that difference. (A feeling in your bones does not constitute evidence)

3. Then you need to explain why your modified version of the state of knowledge will have a significant difference on the final outcomes.

Of course you can phone a friend if you need to clarify exactly what your opinion is.

Wow, I haven't looked in here for a while, muso, I figured you'd shown up all the confusionalists like boofy and co and that they had moved on. But alas ,it looks like you have another one on your hands in the form of Jan, you attract all the bright ones. :D

skippy. wrote on Mar 1^st, 2012 at 1:06pm:

Wow, I haven't looked in here for a while, muso, I figured you'd shown up all the confusionalists like boofy and co and that they had moved on. But alas ,it looks like you have another one on your hands in the form of Jan, you attract all the bright ones. :D

Yes, but I still hate myself for "granny bashing"  8-)