Blue wrote:


Wondering if Brown knows the difference between
Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Monoxide, with his pollution screams.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z04XMXc7zJg

On Jul 22, 7:34*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Jul 22, 7:02*pm, Mel Rowing wrote:
The truth is that no scientific experiment as ever been undertaken
that shows that any increase in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere
will induce global warming. Until one is the theory of anthropogenic
global warming remains just that, a theory.

Consideration of the spectroscopic properties of CO2 which are well
known would appear to conflict with that theory.

It's underpinned by some good science Mel. Science that is far better
than the theories that try to counter CO2 being the major cause of the
warming. Hence, I believe that CO2 is probably the main cause of the
present GW. Of course AGW is still a theory and it will remain so
until proven. However, that theory is far more believable and is
believed by far more scientists, than don't believe it.

But you make no attempt to elaborate on this good science! you
repeatedly accept it as a mere article of faith.

What have we got?

We have a mathematical statistical correlation between assessed global
temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels. That stark fact leads open the
possibililty of the common confusion between correlation and cause.
However, even here there is room for controversy as to whether CO2
level changes preceed or lag behind temperature changes. There are
resepctable theories that support both sides of the controversy but
that's what they are and must remain, theories.

Over and above that we have satellite data which at the very least
lends itself to the suspicion that it undergoes a "correction" process
in order to fit in with the AGW theory. Once we start accepting
corrected data the stright away we have to look at the assumptions
under which that correction process have been applied. In short we
apply a validity to a theory that has not been substantiated.

We do similar when we use computer models to predict future climate
patterns. We make assumptions regarding the validity of the AGW theory
in order to arrive at complex mathematical functions that I don't even
pretend to follow and then "tweak" these models using pre-historical
interpreted data.

There is however things we do know very well.

CO2 is probably the best known molecule in terms of its infra-red
absorption spectrum.

From this we know that CO2 molecules do not totally block infra red
light regardless of any level of CO2 present.

Essentially (and simply) CO2 molecules absorb IR in a specific wave
band (15 microns) that amounts to ~8% of the energy radiated from the
earth surface. That is not theory it is fact observed on countless
occasions.

That particular band of IR is absorbed to extinction (blocked) The
energy from it is converted to heat which is why, as AGW enthusiasts
never tire of telling us that earth is warmer than it otherwise would
be if CO2 were not present.

However, all other IR wavebands are not blocked. A CO2 molecule blocks
just this specific area of IR and not any other. It therefore not the
case that the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere the more IR will be
blocked. Natural CO2 levels are sufficient to block all the IR that
CO2 is capable of blocking. The only difference that increased CO2
levels will make is that extinction will occur at lower levels. The
natural distance of ~99% extinction is a mere ~10m.

You can believe in unsubstantiated theories as much as you like but
you can't believe away this particular piece of "good science" If the
current AGW theory is to stand then these facts have to be accomodated
within it.

I leave you with the work of Heinz Hug in this area.

http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

On Jul 22, 8:06*pm, abelard wrote:

btw what's wrong with the experiment on venus?

What experiment on venus?

meanwhile this will probably interest you

http://www.abelard.org/news/ecology0..._carbon_220708

" In addition, the composition of the cheatgrass changed as the CO2
level increased, the tissues becoming more carbon-rich so that the
plant leaves and stems are less susceptible to decay. In a natural
setting, this would mean that the dead material would persist longer,
adding yet more fuel for wildfire.”

Bull****! And waht has it to do with the IR spctroscopy of CO2?

A plant consists essentially of cellulose, water, a little starch and
small amounts of various sugars dissolved in the water.

All of these have fixed empirical formulae. The proportions of each
element involved in their composition is constant.

How then does one get carbon rich cellulose for instance or "carbon
rich" others for that matter.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:26:49 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
wrote:

On Jul 22, 8:06*pm, abelard wrote:

btw what's wrong with the experiment on venus?

What experiment on venus?

it's as hot as mercury and much further out....
the global warming conspiracy reckons it's a greenhouse
effect (term used to annoy you :-) )

meanwhile this will probably interest you

http://www.abelard.org/news/ecology0..._carbon_220708

" In addition, the composition of the cheatgrass changed as the CO2
level increased, the tissues becoming more carbon-rich so that the
plant leaves and stems are less susceptible to decay. In a natural
setting, this would mean that the dead material would persist longer,
adding yet more fuel for wildfire."

you're just nagging!
maybe he just means there's more of it.....

Bull****! And waht has it to do with the IR spctroscopy of CO2?

nothing that i know of...i just thought it'd interest you....

try making your case about the spectroscopic thingy for outgoing
radiation....your claim about incoming radiation is persuasive
to gullible me....

A plant consists essentially of cellulose, water, a little starch and
small amounts of various sugars dissolved in the water.

and lignin?

All of these have fixed empirical formulae. The proportions of each
element involved in their composition is constant.

on trust?

How then does one get carbon rich cellulose for instance or "carbon
rich" others for that matter.

i give up....
you're the expert....

regards

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:17:29 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
wrote:

On Jul 22, 7:34*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Jul 22, 7:02*pm, Mel Rowing wrote:
The truth is that no scientific experiment as ever been undertaken
that shows that any increase in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere
will induce global warming. Until one is the theory of anthropogenic
global warming remains just that, a theory.

Consideration of the spectroscopic properties of CO2 which are well
known would appear to conflict with that theory.

It's underpinned by some good science Mel. Science that is far better
than the theories that try to counter CO2 being the major cause of the
warming. Hence, I believe that CO2 is probably the main cause of the
present GW. Of course AGW is still a theory and it will remain so
until proven. However, that theory is far more believable and is
believed by far more scientists, than don't believe it.

But you make no attempt to elaborate on this good science! you
repeatedly accept it as a mere article of faith.

What have we got?

We have a mathematical statistical correlation between assessed global
temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels. That stark fact leads open the
possibililty of the common confusion between correlation and cause.
However, even here there is room for controversy as to whether CO2
level changes preceed or lag behind temperature changes. There are
resepctable theories that support both sides of the controversy but
that's what they are and must remain, theories.

please mention that such processes can go both ways
...ie feedbacks

Over and above that we have satellite data which at the very least
lends itself to the suspicion that it undergoes a "correction" process
in order to fit in with the AGW theory. Once we start accepting
corrected data the stright away we have to look at the assumptions
under which that correction process have been applied. In short we
apply a validity to a theory that has not been substantiated.

We do similar when we use computer models to predict future climate
patterns. We make assumptions regarding the validity of the AGW theory
in order to arrive at complex mathematical functions that I don't even
pretend to follow and then "tweak" these models using pre-historical
interpreted data.

There is however things we do know very well.

CO2 is probably the best known molecule in terms of its infra-red
absorption spectrum.

From this we know that CO2 molecules do not totally block infra red
light regardless of any level of CO2 present.

Essentially (and simply) CO2 molecules absorb IR in a specific wave
band (15 microns) that amounts to ~8% of the energy radiated from the
earth surface. That is not theory it is fact observed on countless
occasions.

That particular band of IR is absorbed to extinction (blocked) The
energy from it is converted to heat which is why, as AGW enthusiasts
never tire of telling us that earth is warmer than it otherwise would
be if CO2 were not present.

However, all other IR wavebands are not blocked. A CO2 molecule blocks
just this specific area of IR and not any other. It therefore not the
case that the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere the more IR will be
blocked. Natural CO2 levels are sufficient to block all the IR that
CO2 is capable of blocking. The only difference that increased CO2
levels will make is that extinction will occur at lower levels. The
natural distance of ~99% extinction is a mere ~10m.

You can believe in unsubstantiated theories as much as you like but
you can't believe away this particular piece of "good science" If the
current AGW theory is to stand then these facts have to be accomodated
within it.

I leave you with the work of Heinz Hug in this area.

http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:17:29 -0700 (PDT), Mel Rowing
wrote:

On Jul 22, 7:34*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Jul 22, 7:02*pm, Mel Rowing wrote:
The truth is that no scientific experiment as ever been undertaken
that shows that any increase in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere
will induce global warming. Until one is the theory of anthropogenic
global warming remains just that, a theory.

Consideration of the spectroscopic properties of CO2 which are well
known would appear to conflict with that theory.

It's underpinned by some good science Mel. Science that is far better
than the theories that try to counter CO2 being the major cause of the
warming. Hence, I believe that CO2 is probably the main cause of the
present GW. Of course AGW is still a theory and it will remain so
until proven. However, that theory is far more believable and is
believed by far more scientists, than don't believe it.

But you make no attempt to elaborate on this good science! you
repeatedly accept it as a mere article of faith.

What have we got?

We have a mathematical statistical correlation between assessed global
temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels. That stark fact leads open the
possibililty of the common confusion between correlation and cause.
However, even here there is room for controversy as to whether CO2
level changes preceed or lag behind temperature changes. There are
resepctable theories that support both sides of the controversy but
that's what they are and must remain, theories.

Over and above that we have satellite data which at the very least
lends itself to the suspicion that it undergoes a "correction" process
in order to fit in with the AGW theory. Once we start accepting
corrected data the stright away we have to look at the assumptions
under which that correction process have been applied. In short we
apply a validity to a theory that has not been substantiated.

We do similar when we use computer models to predict future climate
patterns. We make assumptions regarding the validity of the AGW theory
in order to arrive at complex mathematical functions that I don't even
pretend to follow and then "tweak" these models using pre-historical
interpreted data.

There is however things we do know very well.

CO2 is probably the best known molecule in terms of its infra-red
absorption spectrum.

From this we know that CO2 molecules do not totally block infra red
light regardless of any level of CO2 present.

Essentially (and simply) CO2 molecules absorb IR in a specific wave
band (15 microns) that amounts to ~8% of the energy radiated from the
earth surface. That is not theory it is fact observed on countless
occasions.

That particular band of IR is absorbed to extinction (blocked) The
energy from it is converted to heat which is why, as AGW enthusiasts
never tire of telling us that earth is warmer than it otherwise would
be if CO2 were not present.

[hey...the last post went walkabout before i wanted it to]

reasonable as it is regarded as established fact....
but it also contributes to raising water vapour....

However, all other IR wavebands are not blocked. A CO2 molecule blocks
just this specific area of IR and not any other. It therefore not the
case that the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere the more IR will be
blocked. Natural CO2 levels are sufficient to block all the IR that
CO2 is capable of blocking. The only difference that increased CO2
levels will make is that extinction will occur at lower levels. The
natural distance of ~99% extinction is a mere ~10m.

do you mean 10m from the surface? or what?
why do you think that relevant?

regards...

You can believe in unsubstantiated theories as much as you like but
you can't believe away this particular piece of "good science" If the
current AGW theory is to stand then these facts have to be accomodated
within it.

I leave you with the work of Heinz Hug in this area.

http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc 1,552,396 document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Robert S" wrote in message
...
On 22 Jul, 01:34, abelard wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:05:16 -0700 (PDT), Robert S

This isn't science. Or the popularizing of science. It's excrement.

what for....
you're babbling about 'hockey sticks'
you were previously babbling about sunspots.....

the original; 'hockey stick' stuff is from *northern hemisphere*
surrogates going back a long way....
the northern hemisphere is not 'global'

The problem isn't that it's northern hemisphere.

that means it isn't claiming insistently that it is applicable
globally

Doesn't matter what it claims to be if the graph is garbage.

Doesn't matter what it's called in the scientific paper if it's used
as an alarmist PR tool elsewhere.

The problem is a
bizarre weighting system which produces the graph. Which the author
has been apparently very reluctant to divulge. Common sense weightings
of data haven't been able to reproduce the graph.

that is not in accord with my readings....

you clearly have little understanding of statistics...or you wouldn't
be babbling about 'hockey sticks'
you clearly have an agenda....

The point of the "hockey stick graph", aka MBH99, aka the citation I
just gave you, it that it is used as fact (when it it not) in
communications with the general public.

I.e. in Gore's film and book, and an influential IPCC report.

I can think of no other instance where such a controversial item of
scientific data has been so lavishly forced on the public.

It strikes me as curious that much of the debate in public has been
framed by GW enthusiasts on such a thing.

why cares?
there is extremely little doubt that agw is occurring...all that
is seriously under debate nowadays is how much, how soon,
what effects etc....

in all sanity we are approaching the end of the fossil fuel age...
the quicker it happens the better....

why lose so much emotion over details that are of little moment

where is the profit in discussing with you...you'll never ever
be convinced as
your mind is made up....so, why confuse you with facts?

Feel free to debate facts.

you need to start with some charting education......

No, I don't. Been there, done that.

look at the scales on those graphs....
*say* the real 'average' temperature goes from 30* to 31*

consider a side scale running from zero to 100 degrees....
or a scale from -272 to 5000 degrees....

or a scale from 30 degrees to 31 degrees....

you should try drawing these graphs on such differing
scales.......

You're a blithering idiot. Changing the scales of axes doesn't change
the shape.

The shape is the alarmist part.

This is something you learn very early in school. A far cry from
multiple gaussian fitting (which I have first hand experience of
doing). This is so, so basic, but you amazingly don't know it.

Gore gets the y-axis scales wrong in the film to the point that
negative values are up and positive down. He manages not to notice
this.

But this doesn't matter. It's the skewed upwards thrust which doesn't
match reality which matters.

the 'hockey stick' is a function of how you graph the data
before you even start worrying about what the data is....
if you draw the different graphs you may understand...

I have a damn sight more experience of graphs than you.

Just killfile abelard, he's just a sad retard, he has a vested interest like
all the GW loony scientists

Redman

On Jul 22, 11:17*pm, Mel Rowing wrote:
On Jul 22, 7:34*pm, Dawlish wrote:

On Jul 22, 7:02*pm, Mel Rowing wrote:
The truth is that no scientific experiment as ever been undertaken
that shows that any increase in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere
will induce global warming. Until one is the theory of anthropogenic
global warming remains just that, a theory.

Consideration of the spectroscopic properties of CO2 which are well
known would appear to conflict with that theory.

It's underpinned by some good science Mel. Science that is far better
than the theories that try to counter CO2 being the major cause of the
warming. Hence, I believe that CO2 is probably the main cause of the
present GW. Of course AGW is still a theory and it will remain so
until proven. However, that theory is far more believable and is
believed by far more scientists, than don't believe it.

But you make no attempt to elaborate on this good science! you
repeatedly accept it as a mere article of faith.

What have we got?

We have a mathematical statistical correlation between assessed global
temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels. That stark fact leads open the
possibililty of the common confusion between correlation and cause.
However, even here there is room for controversy as to whether CO2
level changes preceed or lag behind temperature changes. There are
resepctable theories that support both sides of the controversy but
that's what they are and must remain, theories.

Over and above that we have satellite data which at the very least
lends itself to the suspicion that it undergoes a "correction" process
in order to fit in with the AGW theory. Once we start accepting
corrected data the stright away we have to look at the assumptions
under which that correction process have been applied. In short we
apply a validity to a theory that has not been substantiated.

We do similar when we use computer models to predict future climate
patterns. We make assumptions regarding the validity of the AGW theory
in order to arrive at complex mathematical functions that I don't even
pretend to follow and then "tweak" these models using pre-historical
interpreted data.

There is however things we do know very well.

CO2 is probably the best known molecule in terms of its infra-red
absorption spectrum.

From this we know that CO2 molecules do not totally block infra red
light regardless of any level of CO2 present.

Essentially (and simply) CO2 molecules absorb IR in a specific wave
band (15 microns) that amounts to ~8% of the energy radiated from the
earth surface. That is not theory it is fact observed *on countless
occasions.

That particular band of IR is absorbed to extinction (blocked) The
energy from it is converted to heat which is why, as AGW enthusiasts
never tire of telling us that earth is warmer than it otherwise would
be if CO2 were not present.

However, all other IR wavebands are not blocked. A CO2 molecule blocks
just this specific area of IR and not any other. It therefore not the
case that the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere the more IR will be
blocked. Natural CO2 levels are sufficient to block all the IR that
CO2 is capable of blocking. The only difference that increased CO2
levels will make is that extinction will occur at lower levels. The
natural distance *of *~99% extinction is a mere ~10m.

You can believe in unsubstantiated theories as much as you like but
you can't believe away this particular piece of "good science" If the
current AGW theory is to stand then these facts have to be accomodated
within it.

I leave you with the work of Heinz Hug in this area.

http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm

And I leave you with the IPCC and the views of the vast majority of
climate scientists and especially the IPCC report. It's easily
searchable and downloadable and is worth a full read before quoting me
possibilitities, rather than seeing the probabiIities that are in
there. I'd back the 1/9 chance that CO2 will be proven to be the main
cause of Global warming. If you wish to stay with the outside chance
that it's not CO2 - fine. It's just fortunate that no-one is listening
to you - or any of the minority of others who would like to quote lots
of other "reasons" why CO2 won't, very probably, be found to be the
cause. All....natural cycles.......sun activity.......gravitational
changes...... all just as important as Hug to some. But nothing like
as important as CO2 is likely to be.

That's why we need to act and ignore the cries of the small minority.

Paul

On Jul 23, 6:16*am, "Redman" wrote:
"Robert S" wrote in message

...





On 22 Jul, 01:34, abelard wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:05:16 -0700 (PDT), Robert S

This isn't science. Or the popularizing of science. It's excrement..

what for....
you're babbling about 'hockey sticks'
you were previously babbling about sunspots.....

the original; 'hockey stick' stuff is from *northern hemisphere*
* * *surrogates going back a long way....
the northern hemisphere is not 'global'

The problem isn't that it's northern hemisphere.

that means it isn't claiming insistently that it is applicable
* * *globally

Doesn't matter what it claims to be if the graph is garbage.

Doesn't matter what it's called in the scientific paper if it's used
as an alarmist PR tool elsewhere.

The problem is a
bizarre weighting system which produces the graph. Which the author
has been apparently very reluctant to divulge. Common sense weightings
of data haven't been able to reproduce the graph.

that is not in accord with my readings....

you clearly have little understanding of statistics...or you wouldn't
* * *be babbling about 'hockey sticks'
you clearly have an agenda....

The point of the "hockey stick graph", aka MBH99, aka the citation I
just gave you, it that it is used as fact (when it it not) in
communications with the general public.

I.e. in Gore's film and book, and an influential IPCC report.

I can think of no other instance where such a controversial item of
scientific data has been so lavishly forced on the public.

It strikes me as curious that much of the debate in public has been
framed by GW enthusiasts on such a thing.

why cares?
there is extremely little doubt that agw is occurring...all that
* * is seriously under debate nowadays is how much, how soon,
* * what effects etc....

in all sanity we are approaching the end of the fossil fuel age...
the quicker it happens the better....

why lose so much emotion over details that are of little moment

where is the profit in discussing with you...you'll never ever
* * *be convinced as
your mind is made up....so, why confuse you with facts?

Feel free to debate facts.

you need to start with some charting education......

No, I don't. Been there, done that.

look at the scales on those graphs....
*say* the real 'average' temperature goes from 30* to 31*

consider a side scale running from zero to 100 degrees....
or a scale from -272 to 5000 degrees....

or a scale from 30 degrees to 31 degrees....

you should try drawing these graphs on such differing
* * scales.......

You're a blithering idiot. Changing the scales of axes doesn't change
the shape.

The shape is the alarmist part.

This is something you learn very early in school. A far cry from
multiple gaussian fitting (which I have first hand experience of
doing). This is so, so basic, but you amazingly don't know it.

Gore gets the y-axis scales wrong in the film to the point that
negative values are up and positive down. He manages not to notice
this.

But this doesn't matter. It's the skewed upwards thrust which doesn't
match reality which matters.

the 'hockey stick' is a function of how you graph the data
* * *before you even start worrying about what the data is....
if you draw the different graphs you may understand...

I have a damn sight more experience of graphs than you.

Just killfile abelard, he's just a sad retard, he has a vested interest like
all the GW loony scientists

Redman- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thousands of scientists who, through examination of the science, feel
that CO2 is probably going to be found to be the cause of GW. All
loony retards.

I think that says little about them and much about you.

Paul

On Jul 22, 5:21 pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Jul 22, 5:13 pm, "Gaz" wrote:



Dawlish wrote:
Oh no! Not the conspracy theory angle!!

The truth is out there........for those that wish to know it.

It's a small minority that wish to know it, however. The science
points to CO2 being the main cause of the warming. Why should there be
a conspiracy theory in believing anything else. It seems like
commonsense to believe that CO2 will probably be proven to be the main
cause of GW and that, as a result, politicians should begin to
organise to take action now.

Sense?

No. You seem to know very little about the climate, its complexity and our
inability to fully understand it.

Gaz

Paul- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I feel that the vast majority of climate scientists, including the
IPCC, who believe that GW is probably (not certainly) being caused by
CO2 and with whom I agree, know far more than most of the small
minority with whom you agree. *))

Youre a ****ing idiot.