"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.....

"Bill Ward" wrote
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.

Wow, the know nothing, nobody suspects something.

I'm moved.

Ahahahahahahahahahahah.........

On Nov 24, 4:07 pm, "HangEveryRepubliKKKan"
Kook-a-doodle-doo And Chemist is a non-scientist toooooooooooooo.....


"chemist" wrote
Here we go again I am and you are definitely not

Yup, you are one Loopie Kookie. But your right. I am not.

"Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
Poor Bull**** Bolger just keeps on lying!


"chemist" wrote
PROVE IT there is nothing to stop you

The poof is all too easy..

"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." - Poor Bull**** Bolger

"chemist" wrote
I do not lie...

Now what were you saying about CO2 and Methane not being greenhouse
gasses?

Ahahahahahahahah......

"chemist" wrote
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 )

"chemist" wrote
The experiments that are supposed to prove that CO2 is
a greenhouse gas show that methane is not.

You mean that methane you farted into a pop bottle and heated with a heat
lamp.

Ahahahahahahahahah.....

You still haven't figured out the difference between heat capacity and
absorption spectra.

Kook-A-Doodle-Doooooo.. And Chemist is a non-scientst too.....



"chemist" wrote
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.

Ok.. Your a liar.

"chemist" wrote
I will say it yet again.,I did it myself it is true.It was easy to do.

Farted into a pop bottle ay? Ain't you so proud.....

All I did was substitute Methane for CO2 in a greenhouse gas
warming experiment .

Kook-A-Doodle-Dooooo And chemist is a non-scientist tooo..

What is the optical density of methane at STP to IR in it's peak
absorption band.

Ahahahahahahaha..... Let me tell you ****Stain... It's a little bit
further than the width of a pop bottle.

"Peter Franks" wrote
For each tree, where did the carbon originally come from?

The core of some unknown collection of first generation stars.

Trees felled by Katrina weighed as factor in global warming
By John Pope, in the Times Picayune
Saturday, November 24, 2007

As if Hurricane Katrina's wind and water hadn't inflicted enough
damage, a group of researchers led by a Tulane University biologist
has found that the monster storm may well have accelerated global
warming.

When Katrina roared through coastal forests in August 2005, it
destroyed thousands of trees. As those trees decompose, the carbon
they release will be enough to offset a year's worth of new tree
growth in other parts of the United States, said Jeffrey Chambers, an
assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology. The team's
report has been published in the peer-reviewed journal Science.

Forests are important adversaries of global warming because they
remove carbon from the atmosphere during photosynthesis, thereby
lowering the production of carbon dioxide. However, an increase in
this compound warms the climate, resulting in more intense storms and,
eventually, more trees that will decompose, the scientists found.

The Tulanians collaborated with researchers from the University of New
Hampshire.

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/metro/i...680.xml&coll=1

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The abstract for the article is Science is at:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../318/5853/1107

It says:

Science 16 November 2007:
Vol. 318. no. 5853, p. 1107
DOI: 10.1126/science.1148913
Brevia
Hurricane Katrina's Carbon Footprint on U.S. Gulf Coast Forests
Jeffrey Q. Chambers,1* Jeremy I. Fisher,1,2 Hongcheng Zeng,1 Elise L.
Chapman,1 David B. Baker,1 George C. Hurtt2
Hurricane Katrina's impact on U.S. Gulf Coast forests was quantified
by linking ecological field studies, Landsat and Moderate Resolution
Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) image analyses, and empirically
based models. Within areas affected by relatively constant wind speed,
tree mortality and damage exhibited strong species-controlled
gradients. Spatially explicit forest disturbance maps coupled with
extrapolation models predicted mortality and severe structural damage
to ~320 million large trees totaling 105 teragrams of carbon,
representing 50 to 140% of the net annual U.S. forest tree carbon
sink. Changes in disturbance regimes from increased storm activity
expected under a warming climate will reduce forest biomass stocks,
increase ecosystem respiration, and may represent an important
positive feedback mechanism to elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide.

1 Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Tulane University, 400 Lindy
Boggs, New Orleans, LA 70118, USA.
2 Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space, University of
New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA.


* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:



-.-. --.- Roger