"Bill Ward" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:52:21 -0800, chemist wrote:

On Nov 26, 6:10 pm, john fernbach wrote:
On Nov 26, 9:40 am, chemist wrote:

On Nov 24, 4:07 pm, "HangEveryRepubliKKKan"

wrote:
"chemist" wrote

There is a problem with this analysis Methane has not and cannot
be demonstrated experimentally to have any properties of a so
called greenhouse gas, neither has CO2 ( in a properly constructed
scientific experiment)

Kook-a-doodle-doo And Chemist is a non-scientist
toooooooooooooo.....

Here we go again I am and you are definitely not I note that Roger
does not reply.

Chemist, I can't speak for Roger. But speaking for myself, it seems the
breadth and scope of your claims about CO2 and methane, which repudiate
mainstream science on this subject for the past century or so, suggests
that if you're correct in your claims, you're really another Einstein or
Galileo figure. Another Copernicus.

If your claims are correct, they will rock the scientific world and mark
a major shift in how CO2 and methane are understood.

Again, I can't speak for Roger, but I'm just not qualified to debate
science with another Einstein or another Copernicus. So I don't.

Hats off to you if you're one day proven right and are written up in the
history books for it, chemist.

In the meantime, though, I think most of us will stick with the
mainstream view on CO2 and methane as articulated by NOAA, the National
Academy of Sciences and the IPCC.

The experiments that are supposed to prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
show that methane is not. It is as simple as that.
The American Professor who is responsible for one of the greenhouse gas
experiments, the German PhD responsible for another one and Roger Coppock
are all unable to offer an explanation for these facts but not one them
has called me a liar.
(only the tail chewer does that )

The bogus "experiments" you are exposing show nothing about the greenhouse
effect of the gases.

Bill Ward lies outright again. lol

Any differences in temperature are because of the
density and related thermal conductivity of the gases, not the IR
absorption properties.

Bill Ward lies outright again. lol

You could try water vapor, a known GHG, and you
would likely get no temperature increase relative to air. With its MW of
18, I would expect it to act much like CH4, except for the lower vapor
pressure due to the hydrogen bonds.

I don't think the issue is whether CO2, CH4, and H20 are greenhouse gases,
because their IR spectra are well known. The unproven assertions made by
AGWers is that anthropogenic CO2 has a significant effect on surface
temperatures, and that the net feedback from water is positive. To my
knowledge, neither has been measured.

The overall effect of water feedback is not yet accurately modeled, but
when and if it is, I expect to see overwhelmingly stabilizing negative
feedback effects from the phase changes of water. Until models can be
proven accurate, the AGWers are arguing from a position of ignorance.
Their assertions that water has a positive overall effect is simply an
unproven simplistic assumption.

Bill Ward lies outright again. lol


The sham "experiment" they shamelessly use to scare school children has
no relationship to the greenhouse effect, any more than a witch doctor's
mask is related to medicine.

Bill Ward lies outright again. lol