In article
,
" wrote:

On Nov 12, 2:25 am, matt_sykes wrote:
On Nov 11, 8:26 pm, "


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...m/thread/32204
58159bbb386/9c8a85e69a84ae3e?hl=en&rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt .global-warming%
2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F3220458159bbb386%3Fhl%3Den %26scoring%3Dd%26&scoring=d#
doc_9c8a85e69a84ae3e

No accounting of the effect of human input of CO2 can be done without
an accounting of the effect of natural CO2.


How can CO2 rise by 1/3 without causing a 1/3 increase in the
temperature effect? Does the effect of CO2 diminish with growing
concentrations?

Yes, but the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 was 260 - 280 parts per
million (ppm), and stand at 390 ppm now. Below 350 ppm is considered
safe by most meteorologists. Some where around 950 ppm -1000 ppm, lies a
mass extinction.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...ID=00037A5 D-
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000

October 2006 Scientific American Magazine

Impact from the Deep by PETER D. WARD,
a professor in the University of Washington's biology department and its
earth and space sciences division

"Around the time of multiple mass extinctions, major volcanic events are
known to have extruded thousands of square kilometers of lava onto the
land or the seafloor. A by-product of this tremendous volcanic
outpouring would have been enormous volumes of carbon dioxide and
methane entering the atmosphere, which would have caused rapid global
warming. During the latest Permian and Triassic as well as in the early
Jurassic, middle Cretaceous and late Paleocene, among other periods, the
carbon-isotope record confirms that CO2 concentrations skyrocketed
immediately before the start of the extinctions and then stayed high for
hundreds of thousands to a few million years. . .

Most troubling, however, is the question of whether our species has
anything to fear from this mechanism in the futu If it happened
before, could it happen again? Although estimates of the rates at which
carbon dioxide entered the atmosphere during each of the ancient
extinctions are still uncertain, the ultimate levels at which the mass
deaths took place are known. The so-called thermal extinction at the end
of the Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under 1,000 parts
per million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic, CO2 was just above 1,000
ppm. Today with CO2 around 385 ppm, it seems we are still safe. But with
atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm and expected to
accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the end of the
next century, and conditions that bring about the beginnings of ocean
anoxia may be in place. How soon after that could there be a new
greenhouse extinction? That is something our society should never find
out."


Yes.

So is this the official theory of the EPA. The EPA is now still
preparing to impose CO2 regulation by the extortion of forcing the
payments of 'pollution permits'.

They plan to impose these 'permits' on electrical generation and large
industry by administrative fiat despite the fact that congress will
not pass such legislation. They claim legal right from the mere
inclusion of the words 'carbon dioxide' in the clean air act, with no
direct science to show the harmful effects of CO2,
Yes, we don't have a planet in a lab where we can feed it CO2, and see
what happens, but in 90 % of the computer models (the same way they
check nuclear warheads) shows Global Warming, and its dire consequences
on food production, in an overcrowded world.
and the mere
inclusion in Obama's spending bills last year in which no direct vote
or debate was done on this issue.


They have ratings for the different GHGs which they plan to impose in
law. These ratings come ONLY from submissions of Hansen to the IPCC.
We would like to see the full theoretical anlsysis, which includes
your belief that the effect of CO2 decreases with greater
concentrations.

We would like to see any science at all, besides the constant claim
that 'all' scientists agree with this theoretical postulation and
completely fabricated ratings for GHG.

Most meteorologists agree with it. IIRC, some 90% of scientists agree
with the Greenhouse Effect of some gases, principally CO2, NH4, and
water vapor. As for their ability to convert sunlight to heat has to do
with bond strength, and if the sunlight has much radiation (photons) in
some multiple of the bond strength. This is absorbed, and returned to
the atmosphere as infrared radiation. To test this, you would need a
spectrophotometer, ideally with a variable wavelength.

KD
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude
http://english.aljazeera.net/video/m...515308172.html

On Nov 13, 8:11*am, Billy wrote:
In article
,





" wrote:
On Nov 12, 2:25 am, matt_sykes wrote:
On Nov 11, 8:26 pm, "


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...browse_frm/thr...
58159bbb386/9c8a85e69a84ae3e?hl=en&rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt .global-warmi*ng%
2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F3220458159bbb386%3Fhl%3Den %26scoring%3Dd%26&scoring*=d#
doc_9c8a85e69a84ae3e

No accounting of the effect of human input of CO2 can be done without
an accounting of the effect of natural CO2.

How can CO2 rise by 1/3 without causing a 1/3 increase in the
temperature effect? Does the effect of CO2 diminish with growing
concentrations?

Yes, but the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 was 260 - 280 parts per
million (ppm), and stand at 390 ppm now. Below 350 ppm is considered
safe by most meteorologists. Some where around 950 ppm -1000 ppm, lies a
mass extinction.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...rticleID=00037...
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000

October 2006 Scientific American Magazine

Impact from the Deep by PETER D. WARD,
a professor in the University of Washington's biology department and its
earth and space sciences division

"Around the time of multiple mass extinctions, major volcanic events are
known to have extruded thousands of square kilometers of lava onto the
land or the seafloor. A by-product of this tremendous volcanic
outpouring would have been enormous volumes of carbon dioxide and
methane entering the atmosphere, which would have caused rapid global
warming. During the latest Permian and Triassic as well as in the early
Jurassic, middle Cretaceous and late Paleocene, among other periods, the
carbon-isotope record confirms that CO2 concentrations skyrocketed
immediately before the start of the extinctions and then stayed high for
hundreds of thousands to a few million years. . .

Most troubling, however, is the question of whether our species has
anything to fear from this mechanism in the futu If it happened
before, could it happen again? Although estimates of the rates at which
carbon dioxide entered the atmosphere during each of the ancient
extinctions are still uncertain, the ultimate levels at which the mass
deaths took place are known. The so-called thermal extinction at the end
of the Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under 1,000 parts
per million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic, CO2 was just above 1,000
ppm. Today with CO2 around 385 ppm, it seems we are still safe. But with
atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm and expected to
accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the end of the
next century, and conditions that bring about the beginnings of ocean
anoxia may be in place. How soon after that could there be a new
greenhouse extinction? That is something our society should never find
out."

Yes.

So is this the official theory of the EPA. The EPA is now still
preparing to impose CO2 regulation by the extortion of forcing the
payments of 'pollution permits'.

They plan to impose these 'permits' on electrical generation and large
industry by administrative fiat despite the fact that congress will
not pass such legislation. They claim legal right from the mere
inclusion of the words 'carbon dioxide' in the clean air act, with no
direct science to show the harmful effects of CO2,

Yes, we don't have a planet in a lab where we can feed it CO2, and see
what happens, but in 90 % of the computer models (the same way they
check nuclear warheads) shows Global Warming, and its dire consequences
on food production, in an overcrowded world.

and the mere
inclusion in Obama's spending bills last year in which no direct vote
or debate was done on this issue.

They have ratings for the different GHGs which they plan to impose in
law. These ratings come ONLY from submissions of Hansen to the IPCC.
We would like to see the full theoretical anlsysis, which includes
your belief that the effect of CO2 decreases with greater
concentrations.

We would like to see any science at all, besides the constant claim
that 'all' scientists agree with this theoretical postulation and
completely fabricated ratings for GHG.

Most meteorologists agree with it. IIRC, some 90% of scientists agree
with the Greenhouse Effect of some gases, principally CO2, NH4, and
water vapor. As for their ability to convert sunlight to heat has to do
with bond strength, and if the sunlight has much radiation (photons) in
some multiple of the bond strength. This is absorbed, and returned to
the atmosphere as infrared radiation. To test this, you would need a
spectrophotometer, ideally with a variable wavelength.

KD

--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2...2816515308...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks Billy. The measurement of outgoing radiation is already
happening Billy and it was being measured before this satellite's
contribution, by less sophisticated satellite-based instruments:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=2029

The results show exactly what was predicted. Greenhouse gases are
absorbing radiation at the expected wavelengths, as you see dips at
those wavelengths in the radiation spectrum from the earth to space.

The thermal mass extinctions of the past would have only happened with
feedbacks, as we know that radiative transfer theory shows limits to
the warming effect of CO2 per se. The feedbacks will not readily be
apparant until they are irreversible and they may already be
happening, of course.

On Nov 13, 8:26*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Nov 13, 8:11*am, Billy wrote:



In article
,

" wrote:
On Nov 12, 2:25 am, matt_sykes wrote:
On Nov 11, 8:26 pm, "


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...browse_frm/thr....
58159bbb386/9c8a85e69a84ae3e?hl=en&rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt .global-warmi*ng%
2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F3220458159bbb386%3Fhl%3Den %26scoring%3Dd%26&scoring*=d#
doc_9c8a85e69a84ae3e

No accounting of the effect of human input of CO2 can be done without
an accounting of the effect of natural CO2.

How can CO2 rise by 1/3 without causing a 1/3 increase in the
temperature effect? Does the effect of CO2 diminish with growing
concentrations?

Yes, but the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 was 260 - 280 parts per
million (ppm), and stand at 390 ppm now. Below 350 ppm is considered
safe by most meteorologists. Some where around 950 ppm -1000 ppm, lies a
mass extinction.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...rticleID=00037...
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000

October 2006 Scientific American Magazine

Impact from the Deep by PETER D. WARD,
a professor in the University of Washington's biology department and its
earth and space sciences division

"Around the time of multiple mass extinctions, major volcanic events are
known to have extruded thousands of square kilometers of lava onto the
land or the seafloor. A by-product of this tremendous volcanic
outpouring would have been enormous volumes of carbon dioxide and
methane entering the atmosphere, which would have caused rapid global
warming. During the latest Permian and Triassic as well as in the early
Jurassic, middle Cretaceous and late Paleocene, among other periods, the
carbon-isotope record confirms that CO2 concentrations skyrocketed
immediately before the start of the extinctions and then stayed high for
hundreds of thousands to a few million years. . .

Most troubling, however, is the question of whether our species has
anything to fear from this mechanism in the futu If it happened
before, could it happen again? Although estimates of the rates at which
carbon dioxide entered the atmosphere during each of the ancient
extinctions are still uncertain, the ultimate levels at which the mass
deaths took place are known. The so-called thermal extinction at the end
of the Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under 1,000 parts
per million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic, CO2 was just above 1,000
ppm. Today with CO2 around 385 ppm, it seems we are still safe. But with
atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm and expected to
accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the end of the
next century, and conditions that bring about the beginnings of ocean
anoxia may be in place. How soon after that could there be a new
greenhouse extinction? That is something our society should never find
out."

Yes.

So is this the official theory of the EPA. The EPA is now still
preparing to impose CO2 regulation by the extortion of forcing the
payments of 'pollution permits'.

They plan to impose these 'permits' on electrical generation and large
industry by administrative fiat despite the fact that congress will
not pass such legislation. They claim legal right from the mere
inclusion of the words 'carbon dioxide' in the clean air act, with no
direct science to show the harmful effects of CO2,

Yes, we don't have a planet in a lab where we can feed it CO2, and see
what happens, but in 90 % of the computer models (the same way they
check nuclear warheads) shows Global Warming, and its dire consequences
on food production, in an overcrowded world.

and the mere
inclusion in Obama's spending bills last year in which no direct vote
or debate was done on this issue.

They have ratings for the different GHGs which they plan to impose in
law. These ratings come ONLY from submissions of Hansen to the IPCC.
We would like to see the full theoretical anlsysis, which includes
your belief that the effect of CO2 decreases with greater
concentrations.

We would like to see any science at all, besides the constant claim
that 'all' scientists agree with this theoretical postulation and
completely fabricated ratings for GHG.

Most meteorologists agree with it. IIRC, some 90% of scientists agree
with the Greenhouse Effect of some gases, principally CO2, NH4, and
water vapor. As for their ability to convert sunlight to heat has to do
with bond strength, and if the sunlight has much radiation (photons) in
some multiple of the bond strength. This is absorbed, and returned to
the atmosphere as infrared radiation. To test this, you would need a
spectrophotometer, ideally with a variable wavelength.

KD

--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2...eera.ne...Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks Billy. The measurement of outgoing radiation is already
happening Billy and it was being measured before this satellite's
contribution, by less sophisticated satellite-based instruments:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=2029

Hmmm.... didn't NASA admit to massively stuffing up the
measurements?
In fact didn't they change the temperature readings to be exactly what
the
warmists wanted them to be after years being very, very different?
How
can we trust them now?

The results show exactly what was predicted. Greenhouse gases are
absorbing radiation at the expected wavelengths, as you see dips at
those wavelengths in the radiation spectrum from the earth to space.

The thermal mass extinctions of the past would have only happened with
feedbacks, as we know that radiative transfer theory shows limits to
the warming effect of CO2 per se. The feedbacks will not readily be
apparant until they are irreversible and they may already be
happening, of course.

The "feedbacks" somehow managed to make the previous warmings
come 800 years before the CO2 that allegedly caused them.

On Nov 13, 10:25*am, Michael Price wrote:
On Nov 13, 8:26*pm, Dawlish wrote:



On Nov 13, 8:11*am, Billy wrote:

In article
,

" wrote:
On Nov 12, 2:25 am, matt_sykes wrote:
On Nov 11, 8:26 pm, "


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...browse_frm/thr...
58159bbb386/9c8a85e69a84ae3e?hl=en&rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt .global-warmi**ng%
2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F3220458159bbb386%3Fhl%3Den %26scoring%3Dd%26&scoring**=d#
doc_9c8a85e69a84ae3e

No accounting of the effect of human input of CO2 can be done without
an accounting of the effect of natural CO2.

How can CO2 rise by 1/3 without causing a 1/3 increase in the
temperature effect? Does the effect of CO2 diminish with growing
concentrations?

Yes, but the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 was 260 - 280 parts per
million (ppm), and stand at 390 ppm now. Below 350 ppm is considered
safe by most meteorologists. Some where around 950 ppm -1000 ppm, lies a
mass extinction.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...rticleID=00037...
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000

October 2006 Scientific American Magazine

Impact from the Deep by PETER D. WARD,
a professor in the University of Washington's biology department and its
earth and space sciences division

"Around the time of multiple mass extinctions, major volcanic events are
known to have extruded thousands of square kilometers of lava onto the
land or the seafloor. A by-product of this tremendous volcanic
outpouring would have been enormous volumes of carbon dioxide and
methane entering the atmosphere, which would have caused rapid global
warming. During the latest Permian and Triassic as well as in the early
Jurassic, middle Cretaceous and late Paleocene, among other periods, the
carbon-isotope record confirms that CO2 concentrations skyrocketed
immediately before the start of the extinctions and then stayed high for
hundreds of thousands to a few million years. . .

Most troubling, however, is the question of whether our species has
anything to fear from this mechanism in the futu If it happened
before, could it happen again? Although estimates of the rates at which
carbon dioxide entered the atmosphere during each of the ancient
extinctions are still uncertain, the ultimate levels at which the mass
deaths took place are known. The so-called thermal extinction at the end
of the Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under 1,000 parts
per million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic, CO2 was just above 1,000
ppm. Today with CO2 around 385 ppm, it seems we are still safe. But with
atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm and expected to
accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the end of the
next century, and conditions that bring about the beginnings of ocean
anoxia may be in place. How soon after that could there be a new
greenhouse extinction? That is something our society should never find
out."

Yes.

So is this the official theory of the EPA. The EPA is now still
preparing to impose CO2 regulation by the extortion of forcing the
payments of 'pollution permits'.

They plan to impose these 'permits' on electrical generation and large
industry by administrative fiat despite the fact that congress will
not pass such legislation. They claim legal right from the mere
inclusion of the words 'carbon dioxide' in the clean air act, with no
direct science to show the harmful effects of CO2,

Yes, we don't have a planet in a lab where we can feed it CO2, and see
what happens, but in 90 % of the computer models (the same way they
check nuclear warheads) shows Global Warming, and its dire consequences
on food production, in an overcrowded world.

and the mere
inclusion in Obama's spending bills last year in which no direct vote
or debate was done on this issue.

They have ratings for the different GHGs which they plan to impose in
law. These ratings come ONLY from submissions of Hansen to the IPCC..
We would like to see the full theoretical anlsysis, which includes
your belief that the effect of CO2 decreases with greater
concentrations.

We would like to see any science at all, besides the constant claim
that 'all' scientists agree with this theoretical postulation and
completely fabricated ratings for GHG.

Most meteorologists agree with it. IIRC, some 90% of scientists agree
with the Greenhouse Effect of some gases, principally CO2, NH4, and
water vapor. As for their ability to convert sunlight to heat has to do
with bond strength, and if the sunlight has much radiation (photons) in
some multiple of the bond strength. This is absorbed, and returned to
the atmosphere as infrared radiation. To test this, you would need a
spectrophotometer, ideally with a variable wavelength.

KD

--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2...ra.ne...quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks Billy. The measurement of outgoing radiation is already
happening Billy and it was being measured before this satellite's
contribution, by less sophisticated satellite-based instruments:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=2029

* Hmmm.... didn't NASA admit to massively stuffing up the
measurements?
In fact didn't they change the temperature readings to be exactly what
the
warmists wanted them to be after years being very, very different?
How
can we trust them now?

The results show exactly what was predicted. Greenhouse gases are
absorbing radiation at the expected wavelengths, as you see dips at
those wavelengths in the radiation spectrum from the earth to space.

The thermal mass extinctions of the past would have only happened with
feedbacks, as we know that radiative transfer theory shows limits to
the warming effect of CO2 per se. The feedbacks will not readily be
apparant until they are irreversible and they may already be
happening, of course.

* The "feedbacks" somehow managed to make the previous warmings
come 800 years before the CO2 that allegedly caused them.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No they didn't "admit" to anyhting of the sort and of course you can
trust them. Easy answers.

The recent research, published in "Nature" last week, shows no such
warming, then CO2 release, pattern.

On Nov 14, 5:34*am, Dawlish wrote:
On Nov 13, 10:25*am, Michael Price wrote:



On Nov 13, 8:26*pm, Dawlish wrote:

On Nov 13, 8:11*am, Billy wrote:

In article
,

" wrote:
On Nov 12, 2:25 am, matt_sykes wrote:
On Nov 11, 8:26 pm, "


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...browse_frm/thr...
58159bbb386/9c8a85e69a84ae3e?hl=en&rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt .global-warmi**ng%
2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F3220458159bbb386%3Fhl%3Den %26scoring%3Dd%26&scoring**=d#
doc_9c8a85e69a84ae3e

No accounting of the effect of human input of CO2 can be done without
an accounting of the effect of natural CO2.

How can CO2 rise by 1/3 without causing a 1/3 increase in the
temperature effect? Does the effect of CO2 diminish with growing
concentrations?

Yes, but the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 was 260 - 280 parts per
million (ppm), and stand at 390 ppm now. Below 350 ppm is considered
safe by most meteorologists. Some where around 950 ppm -1000 ppm, lies a
mass extinction.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...rticleID=00037...
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000

October 2006 Scientific American Magazine

Impact from the Deep by PETER D. WARD,
a professor in the University of Washington's biology department and its
earth and space sciences division

"Around the time of multiple mass extinctions, major volcanic events are
known to have extruded thousands of square kilometers of lava onto the
land or the seafloor. A by-product of this tremendous volcanic
outpouring would have been enormous volumes of carbon dioxide and
methane entering the atmosphere, which would have caused rapid global
warming. During the latest Permian and Triassic as well as in the early
Jurassic, middle Cretaceous and late Paleocene, among other periods, the
carbon-isotope record confirms that CO2 concentrations skyrocketed
immediately before the start of the extinctions and then stayed high for
hundreds of thousands to a few million years. . .

Most troubling, however, is the question of whether our species has
anything to fear from this mechanism in the futu If it happened
before, could it happen again? Although estimates of the rates at which
carbon dioxide entered the atmosphere during each of the ancient
extinctions are still uncertain, the ultimate levels at which the mass
deaths took place are known. The so-called thermal extinction at the end
of the Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under 1,000 parts
per million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic, CO2 was just above 1,000
ppm. Today with CO2 around 385 ppm, it seems we are still safe. But with
atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm and expected to
accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the end of the
next century, and conditions that bring about the beginnings of ocean
anoxia may be in place. How soon after that could there be a new
greenhouse extinction? That is something our society should never find
out."

Yes.

So is this the official theory of the EPA. The EPA is now still
preparing to impose CO2 regulation by the extortion of forcing the
payments of 'pollution permits'.

They plan to impose these 'permits' on electrical generation and large
industry by administrative fiat despite the fact that congress will
not pass such legislation. They claim legal right from the mere
inclusion of the words 'carbon dioxide' in the clean air act, with no
direct science to show the harmful effects of CO2,

Yes, we don't have a planet in a lab where we can feed it CO2, and see
what happens, but in 90 % of the computer models (the same way they
check nuclear warheads) shows Global Warming, and its dire consequences
on food production, in an overcrowded world.

and the mere
inclusion in Obama's spending bills last year in which no direct vote
or debate was done on this issue.

They have ratings for the different GHGs which they plan to impose in
law. These ratings come ONLY from submissions of Hansen to the IPCC.
We would like to see the full theoretical anlsysis, which includes
your belief that the effect of CO2 decreases with greater
concentrations.

We would like to see any science at all, besides the constant claim
that 'all' scientists agree with this theoretical postulation and
completely fabricated ratings for GHG.

Most meteorologists agree with it. IIRC, some 90% of scientists agree
with the Greenhouse Effect of some gases, principally CO2, NH4, and
water vapor. As for their ability to convert sunlight to heat has to do
with bond strength, and if the sunlight has much radiation (photons) in
some multiple of the bond strength. This is absorbed, and returned to
the atmosphere as infrared radiation. To test this, you would need a
spectrophotometer, ideally with a variable wavelength.

KD

--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.http://www..democracynow.org/2010/7/...eera.ne...text -

- Show quoted text -

Thanks Billy. The measurement of outgoing radiation is already
happening Billy and it was being measured before this satellite's
contribution, by less sophisticated satellite-based instruments:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=2029

* Hmmm.... didn't NASA admit to massively stuffing up the
measurements?
In fact didn't they change the temperature readings to be exactly what
the
warmists wanted them to be after years being very, very different?
How
can we trust them now?

The results show exactly what was predicted. Greenhouse gases are
absorbing radiation at the expected wavelengths, as you see dips at
those wavelengths in the radiation spectrum from the earth to space.

The thermal mass extinctions of the past would have only happened with
feedbacks, as we know that radiative transfer theory shows limits to
the warming effect of CO2 per se. The feedbacks will not readily be
apparant until they are irreversible and they may already be
happening, of course.

* The "feedbacks" somehow managed to make the previous warmings
come 800 years before the CO2 that allegedly caused them.

- Show quoted text -

No they didn't "admit" to anyhting of the sort

Yes they did you idiot, that's why they changed the numbers from not
supporting
global warming to supporting it. Of course you know this which is why
you snip the
question you are allegedly answering, so nobody else can tell you're
lying.

and of course you can trust them. Easy answers.

But not true ones.

The recent research, published in "Nature" last week, shows no such
warming, then CO2 release, pattern.

Then the recent research is against all previous research, which
seems odd.

On Nov 17, 6:50*am, Michael Price wrote:
On Nov 14, 5:34*am, Dawlish wrote:





On Nov 13, 10:25*am, Michael Price wrote:

On Nov 13, 8:26*pm, Dawlish wrote:

On Nov 13, 8:11*am, Billy wrote:

In article
,

" wrote:
On Nov 12, 2:25 am, matt_sykes wrote:
On Nov 11, 8:26 pm, "


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...browse_frm/thr...
58159bbb386/9c8a85e69a84ae3e?hl=en&rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt .global-warmi***ng%
2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F3220458159bbb386%3Fhl%3Den %26scoring%3Dd%26&scoring***=d#
doc_9c8a85e69a84ae3e

No accounting of the effect of human input of CO2 can be done without
an accounting of the effect of natural CO2.

How can CO2 rise by 1/3 without causing a 1/3 increase in the
temperature effect? Does the effect of CO2 diminish with growing
concentrations?

Yes, but the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 was 260 - 280 parts per
million (ppm), and stand at 390 ppm now. Below 350 ppm is considered
safe by most meteorologists. Some where around 950 ppm -1000 ppm, lies a
mass extinction.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...rticleID=00037...
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000

October 2006 Scientific American Magazine

Impact from the Deep by PETER D. WARD,
a professor in the University of Washington's biology department and its
earth and space sciences division

"Around the time of multiple mass extinctions, major volcanic events are
known to have extruded thousands of square kilometers of lava onto the
land or the seafloor. A by-product of this tremendous volcanic
outpouring would have been enormous volumes of carbon dioxide and
methane entering the atmosphere, which would have caused rapid global
warming. During the latest Permian and Triassic as well as in the early
Jurassic, middle Cretaceous and late Paleocene, among other periods, the
carbon-isotope record confirms that CO2 concentrations skyrocketed
immediately before the start of the extinctions and then stayed high for
hundreds of thousands to a few million years. . .

Most troubling, however, is the question of whether our species has
anything to fear from this mechanism in the futu If it happened
before, could it happen again? Although estimates of the rates at which
carbon dioxide entered the atmosphere during each of the ancient
extinctions are still uncertain, the ultimate levels at which the mass
deaths took place are known. The so-called thermal extinction at the end
of the Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under 1,000 parts
per million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic, CO2 was just above 1,000
ppm. Today with CO2 around 385 ppm, it seems we are still safe. But with
atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm and expected to
accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the end of the
next century, and conditions that bring about the beginnings of ocean
anoxia may be in place. How soon after that could there be a new
greenhouse extinction? That is something our society should never find
out."

Yes.

So is this the official theory of the EPA. The EPA is now still
preparing to impose CO2 regulation by the extortion of forcing the
payments of 'pollution permits'.

They plan to impose these 'permits' on electrical generation and large
industry by administrative fiat despite the fact that congress will
not pass such legislation. They claim legal right from the mere
inclusion of the words 'carbon dioxide' in the clean air act, with no
direct science to show the harmful effects of CO2,

Yes, we don't have a planet in a lab where we can feed it CO2, and see
what happens, but in 90 % of the computer models (the same way they
check nuclear warheads) shows Global Warming, and its dire consequences
on food production, in an overcrowded world.

and the mere
inclusion in Obama's spending bills last year in which no direct vote
or debate was done on this issue.

They have ratings for the different GHGs which they plan to impose in
law. These ratings come ONLY from submissions of Hansen to the IPCC.
We would like to see the full theoretical anlsysis, which includes
your belief that the effect of CO2 decreases with greater
concentrations.

We would like to see any science at all, besides the constant claim
that 'all' scientists agree with this theoretical postulation and
completely fabricated ratings for GHG.

Most meteorologists agree with it. IIRC, some 90% of scientists agree
with the Greenhouse Effect of some gases, principally CO2, NH4, and
water vapor. As for their ability to convert sunlight to heat has to do
with bond strength, and if the sunlight has much radiation (photons) in
some multiple of the bond strength. This is absorbed, and returned to
the atmosphere as infrared radiation. To test this, you would need a
spectrophotometer, ideally with a variable wavelength.

KD

--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2...jazeera.ne...-

- Show quoted text -

Thanks Billy. The measurement of outgoing radiation is already
happening Billy and it was being measured before this satellite's
contribution, by less sophisticated satellite-based instruments:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=2029

* Hmmm.... didn't NASA admit to massively stuffing up the
measurements?
In fact didn't they change the temperature readings to be exactly what
the
warmists wanted them to be after years being very, very different?
How
can we trust them now?

The results show exactly what was predicted. Greenhouse gases are
absorbing radiation at the expected wavelengths, as you see dips at
those wavelengths in the radiation spectrum from the earth to space..

The thermal mass extinctions of the past would have only happened with
feedbacks, as we know that radiative transfer theory shows limits to
the warming effect of CO2 per se. The feedbacks will not readily be
apparant until they are irreversible and they may already be
happening, of course.

* The "feedbacks" somehow managed to make the previous warmings
come 800 years before the CO2 that allegedly caused them.

- Show quoted text -

No they didn't "admit" to anyhting of the sort

* Yes they did you idiot, that's why they changed the numbers from not
supporting
global warming to supporting it. *Of course you know this which is why
you snip the
question you are allegedly answering, so nobody else can tell you're
lying.

and of course you can *trust them. Easy answers.

* But not true ones.

The recent research, published in "Nature" last week, shows no such
warming, then CO2 release, pattern.

* Then the recent research is against all previous research, which
seems odd.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -