Name the Major Flaw In This Signal Processing Analysis Probl

[fungus]

On Dec 22, 11:58 am, Richard Dobson <richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

So, perhaps it may be worth reading after all?

Give up, he;s never going to read it.

The only thing to notice here is that he wrote
three worthless lines with no brainpower needed
and you wrote two paragraphs of researched
information.

See what his game is....?

He doesn't want to be informed, he's having
too much fun feeling superior and yanking
people's strings.

Whenever you see this imbalance of effort
the only way to win is to stop posting.

 

[Bill Ward]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:58:09 +0000, Richard Dobson wrote:

On 22/12/2011 02:26, Bill Ward wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:19:01 +0000, Richard Dobson wrote:

On 21/12/2011 23:58, Bill Ward wrote: ..

Evidence for, and explanation of, some plausible mechanism that
allowed CO2 to heat the surface would be a good start. Preferably
one that doesn't violate too many fundamental physical principles.


Well, you can start with the work of Tyndall:

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

Hopefully that was long enough ago to not be tarred with the
conspiracy-theory brush.

OK, go for it. Quote the part you're referring to, and explain the
mechanism by which you think it allows CO2 to heat the surface. Then
we can discuss it. Can you do that or not?


Now you are just being lazy, or something. Have ~you~ read it? Oh well,
read the sections about moecular resonance, radiant heat, reflection,
absorption and emission, such as "....molecules that are weak absorbers
are weak emitters and strong absorbers are strong emitters". Or is it
that you deny the reality of the whole principle of a greenhouse gas,
including atmospheric H2O? If you don't want to take on board the whole
detailed picture of molecular behaviour, you can just "think of" CO2 as
reflecting radiant heat from the surface back to the surface; just as
clouds do. A greenhouse gas will of course radiate in all directions,
including upwards, but a useful proportion of it gets all the way back
to us.

You may observe that (all other things being equal...) after a sunny
day, a cloud-covered night will be warmer than a cloudless one. With the
latter, in winter, even into early spring, we get a hard frost. With the
former, we don't get a frost at all, the night can almost be balmy. The
greenhouse effect is not specific to or limited to CO2; it is just that
CO2 is a pretty good one, there is rather a lot of it around at the
moment, more than we would like, and unlike H2O it is something we have
some control over, since we are making most of it ourselves.

I'll take that as a rather wordy "not".

So, perhaps it may be worth reading after all?

Well, you first need to be able to understand it, or reading it won't
help, as you demonstrated above.

There's no point in trying to discuss something that you can't even
explain. You stand exposed as another Dawlish.

 

[Bill Ward]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 06:37:46 -0800, fungus wrote:

On Dec 22, 11:58 am, Richard Dobson <richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:

So, perhaps it may be worth reading after all?


Give up, he;s never going to read it.

The only thing to notice here is that he wrote three worthless lines
with no brainpower needed and you wrote two paragraphs of researched
information.

See what his game is....?

Mr. fungus's specialty seems to be snipping content.

He doesn't want to be informed, he's having too much fun feeling
superior and yanking people's strings.

Whenever you see this imbalance of effort the only way to win is to stop
posting.

That's probably truer than fungus realizes.

 

[Bill Snyder]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:21:40 -0600, Bill Ward
<bward@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:58:09 +0000, Richard Dobson wrote:

On 22/12/2011 02:26, Bill Ward wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:19:01 +0000, Richard Dobson wrote:

On 21/12/2011 23:58, Bill Ward wrote: ..

Evidence for, and explanation of, some plausible mechanism that
allowed CO2 to heat the surface would be a good start. Preferably
one that doesn't violate too many fundamental physical principles.


Well, you can start with the work of Tyndall:

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

Hopefully that was long enough ago to not be tarred with the
conspiracy-theory brush.

OK, go for it. Quote the part you're referring to, and explain the
mechanism by which you think it allows CO2 to heat the surface. Then
we can discuss it. Can you do that or not?


Now you are just being lazy, or something. Have ~you~ read it? Oh well,
read the sections about moecular resonance, radiant heat, reflection,
absorption and emission, such as "....molecules that are weak absorbers
are weak emitters and strong absorbers are strong emitters". Or is it
that you deny the reality of the whole principle of a greenhouse gas,
including atmospheric H2O? If you don't want to take on board the whole
detailed picture of molecular behaviour, you can just "think of" CO2 as
reflecting radiant heat from the surface back to the surface; just as
clouds do. A greenhouse gas will of course radiate in all directions,
including upwards, but a useful proportion of it gets all the way back
to us.

You may observe that (all other things being equal...) after a sunny
day, a cloud-covered night will be warmer than a cloudless one. With the
latter, in winter, even into early spring, we get a hard frost. With the
former, we don't get a frost at all, the night can almost be balmy. The
greenhouse effect is not specific to or limited to CO2; it is just that
CO2 is a pretty good one, there is rather a lot of it around at the
moment, more than we would like, and unlike H2O it is something we have
some control over, since we are making most of it ourselves.

I'll take that as a rather wordy "not".

So, perhaps it may be worth reading after all?

Well, you first need to be able to understand it, or reading it won't
help, as you demonstrated above.

There's no point in trying to discuss something that you can't even
explain. You stand exposed as another Dawlish.

"There's no point in trying to discuss, blah, blah, bullshit,
bullshit," is not an accurate translation of "I have no evidence to
put against that, so I'll just have to keep sneering and lying."


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

 

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <i3q6f71qs19j11mupuu2ekcjo8a7l22afj@4ax.com>,
Bill Snyder <bsnyder@airmail.net> wrote:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:21:40 -0600, Bill Ward
bward@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:58:09 +0000, Richard Dobson wrote:

On 22/12/2011 02:26, Bill Ward wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:19:01 +0000, Richard Dobson wrote:

On 21/12/2011 23:58, Bill Ward wrote: ..

Evidence for, and explanation of, some plausible mechanism that
allowed CO2 to heat the surface would be a good start. Preferably
one that doesn't violate too many fundamental physical principles.


Well, you can start with the work of Tyndall:

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

Hopefully that was long enough ago to not be tarred with the
conspiracy-theory brush.

OK, go for it. Quote the part you're referring to, and explain the
mechanism by which you think it allows CO2 to heat the surface. Then
we can discuss it. Can you do that or not?


Now you are just being lazy, or something. Have ~you~ read it? Oh well,
read the sections about moecular resonance, radiant heat, reflection,
absorption and emission, such as "....molecules that are weak absorbers
are weak emitters and strong absorbers are strong emitters". Or is it
that you deny the reality of the whole principle of a greenhouse gas,
including atmospheric H2O? If you don't want to take on board the whole
detailed picture of molecular behaviour, you can just "think of" CO2 as
reflecting radiant heat from the surface back to the surface; just as
clouds do. A greenhouse gas will of course radiate in all directions,
including upwards, but a useful proportion of it gets all the way back
to us.

You may observe that (all other things being equal...) after a sunny
day, a cloud-covered night will be warmer than a cloudless one. With the
latter, in winter, even into early spring, we get a hard frost. With the
former, we don't get a frost at all, the night can almost be balmy. The
greenhouse effect is not specific to or limited to CO2; it is just that
CO2 is a pretty good one, there is rather a lot of it around at the
moment, more than we would like, and unlike H2O it is something we have
some control over, since we are making most of it ourselves.

I'll take that as a rather wordy "not".

So, perhaps it may be worth reading after all?

Well, you first need to be able to understand it, or reading it won't
help, as you demonstrated above.

There's no point in trying to discuss something that you can't even
explain. You stand exposed as another Dawlish.

"There's no point in trying to discuss, blah, blah, bullshit,
bullshit," is not an accurate translation of "I have no evidence to
put against that, so I'll just have to keep sneering and lying."

Once again "Bill Snyder" demonstrates his degree in scatology.

 

[Bill Snyder]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:42:30 -0500, Orval Fairbairn
<orfairbairn@earthlink.net> wrote:

In article <i3q6f71qs19j11mupuu2ekcjo8a7l22afj@4ax.com>,
Bill Snyder <bsnyder@airmail.net> wrote:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:21:40 -0600, Bill Ward
bward@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:58:09 +0000, Richard Dobson wrote:

On 22/12/2011 02:26, Bill Ward wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:19:01 +0000, Richard Dobson wrote:

On 21/12/2011 23:58, Bill Ward wrote: ..

Evidence for, and explanation of, some plausible mechanism that
allowed CO2 to heat the surface would be a good start. Preferably
one that doesn't violate too many fundamental physical principles.


Well, you can start with the work of Tyndall:

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

Hopefully that was long enough ago to not be tarred with the
conspiracy-theory brush.

OK, go for it. Quote the part you're referring to, and explain the
mechanism by which you think it allows CO2 to heat the surface. Then
we can discuss it. Can you do that or not?


Now you are just being lazy, or something. Have ~you~ read it? Oh well,
read the sections about moecular resonance, radiant heat, reflection,
absorption and emission, such as "....molecules that are weak absorbers
are weak emitters and strong absorbers are strong emitters". Or is it
that you deny the reality of the whole principle of a greenhouse gas,
including atmospheric H2O? If you don't want to take on board the whole
detailed picture of molecular behaviour, you can just "think of" CO2 as
reflecting radiant heat from the surface back to the surface; just as
clouds do. A greenhouse gas will of course radiate in all directions,
including upwards, but a useful proportion of it gets all the way back
to us.

You may observe that (all other things being equal...) after a sunny
day, a cloud-covered night will be warmer than a cloudless one. With the
latter, in winter, even into early spring, we get a hard frost. With the
former, we don't get a frost at all, the night can almost be balmy. The
greenhouse effect is not specific to or limited to CO2; it is just that
CO2 is a pretty good one, there is rather a lot of it around at the
moment, more than we would like, and unlike H2O it is something we have
some control over, since we are making most of it ourselves.

I'll take that as a rather wordy "not".

So, perhaps it may be worth reading after all?

Well, you first need to be able to understand it, or reading it won't
help, as you demonstrated above.

There's no point in trying to discuss something that you can't even
explain. You stand exposed as another Dawlish.

"There's no point in trying to discuss, blah, blah, bullshit,
bullshit," is not an accurate translation of "I have no evidence to
put against that, so I'll just have to keep sneering and lying."

Once again "Bill Snyder" demonstrates his degree in scatology.

Once again Orval demonstrates his 98.6 degrees in Fahrenheit.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:58:09 +0000, Richard Dobson wrote:

On 22/12/2011 02:26, Bill Ward wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:19:01 +0000, Richard Dobson wrote:

On 21/12/2011 23:58, Bill Ward wrote: ..

Evidence for, and explanation of, some plausible mechanism that
allowed CO2 to heat the surface would be a good start. Preferably
one that doesn't violate too many fundamental physical principles.


Well, you can start with the work of Tyndall:

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

Hopefully that was long enough ago to not be tarred with the
conspiracy-theory brush.

OK, go for it. Quote the part you're referring to, and explain the
mechanism by which you think it allows CO2 to heat the surface. Then
we can discuss it. Can you do that or not?


Now you are just being lazy, or something. Have ~you~ read it?

You narrow it down to a general theory?


That's like me saying Tesla says electricity caused global warming.

 

[Richard Dobson]

On 22/12/2011 17:28, Bill Snyder wrote:
...

Well, you first need to be able to understand it, or reading it won't
help, as you demonstrated above.

There's no point in trying to discuss something that you can't even
explain. You stand exposed as another Dawlish.

"There's no point in trying to discuss, blah, blah, bullshit,
bullshit," is not an accurate translation of "I have no evidence to
put against that, so I'll just have to keep sneering and lying."

Well it's not so bad really. He wants (or at least, claims to want)
explanations. The problem with explanations is that there can be no end
to them - whatever is given can instantly be followed by a "Why?" or a
"How?" – as Feynman so memorably described in an interview. Any
explanation has to be fitted to the level of understanding and knowledge
of the explainee. One explanation has to be given to the infant, another
to the schoolkid, yet another to the interested adult, and still another
to the practised scientist. Over an anonymous medium such as usenet it
is clearly impossible to ascertain what that level is in each case
(clearly, contributing to (say) sci.physics is no guarantee that the
contributor is a physicist), so it is hardly surprising that most
attempts fail. Which is why it is such fun for people to go on rejecting
each explanation as it is given. One does wonder though what they
actually learn using that approach. That may not have been the intention
in the first place, of course.

But that misses the key point of the Tyndall example, and to some extent
of the whole AGW quasi-debate: whatever the "true" explanation may or
may not prove to be (and we know such things take time), this is clearly
~observed and measured behaviour~, all the more remarkable considering
when it was done - it is ~what CO2 does~. The more there is of it, the
more of it it will do. An explanation of gravity had to wait for
Newton's work; and then a new one was provided centuries later, which
was employed to account for other observed behaviour and which proffered
a mechanism that had not been considered before. Many will say that even
that explanation is unsatisfactory or insufficient. But both before and
after Newton, all the way back to prehistory, and all the way forwards
to today, the effects and power of gravity have been well enough
observed and measured that everyone knew and knows that dropping a
fragile object onto a hard surface over a certain distance causes it to
break (many birds know that trick), and falling from a very high place
is an effective means of death. So, put CO2 into the atmosphere and,
whatever the explanation, it will do what we know it does.

And if I am silent from here on in, the explanation is simple - its
Christmas! Peace and harmony to all.

Richard Dobson

 

[Bill Ward]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:34:39 +0000, Richard Dobson wrote:

On 22/12/2011 17:28, Bill Snyder wrote: ..
Well, you first need to be able to understand it, or reading it won't
help, as you demonstrated above.

There's no point in trying to discuss something that you can't even
explain. You stand exposed as another Dawlish.

"There's no point in trying to discuss, blah, blah, bullshit,
bullshit," is not an accurate translation of "I have no evidence to put
against that, so I'll just have to keep sneering and lying."



Well it's not so bad really. He wants (or at least, claims to want)
explanations. The problem with explanations is that there can be no end
to them - whatever is given can instantly be followed by a "Why?" or a
"How?" – as Feynman so memorably described in an interview. Any
explanation has to be fitted to the level of understanding and knowledge
of the explainee. One explanation has to be given to the infant, another
to the schoolkid, yet another to the interested adult, and still another
to the practised scientist. Over an anonymous medium such as usenet it
is clearly impossible to ascertain what that level is in each case
(clearly, contributing to (say) sci.physics is no guarantee that the
contributor is a physicist), so it is hardly surprising that most
attempts fail. Which is why it is such fun for people to go on rejecting
each explanation as it is given. One does wonder though what they
actually learn using that approach. That may not have been the intention
in the first place, of course.

But that misses the key point of the Tyndall example, and to some extent
of the whole AGW quasi-debate: whatever the "true" explanation may or
may not prove to be (and we know such things take time), this is clearly
~observed and measured behaviour~, all the more remarkable considering
when it was done - it is ~what CO2 does~. The more there is of it, the
more of it it will do. An explanation of gravity had to wait for
Newton's work; and then a new one was provided centuries later, which
was employed to account for other observed behaviour and which proffered
a mechanism that had not been considered before. Many will say that even
that explanation is unsatisfactory or insufficient. But both before and
after Newton, all the way back to prehistory, and all the way forwards
to today, the effects and power of gravity have been well enough
observed and measured that everyone knew and knows that dropping a
fragile object onto a hard surface over a certain distance causes it to
break (many birds know that trick), and falling from a very high place
is an effective means of death. So, put CO2 into the atmosphere and,
whatever the explanation, it will do what we know it does.

Without evidence and an explanation of the mechanism, how do you know
what it does?

And if I am silent from here on in, the explanation is simple - its
Christmas! Peace and harmony to all.

Richard Dobson

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

On 2011-12-21, Bill Ward <bward@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:

The problem is, Jerry, that you don't understand the problem. The
surface of the Earth is heated by the Sun and cooled primarily by
conduction and convection. The surface radiation affected by GHGs is
already absorbed within a few meters and converted to heat.

Your reasoning is right based on your assumption, but this where I suspect you
might be going wrong.

What is the source for the claim that surface radiation is absorbed
in a few meters?

 

[Bill Snyder]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 21:24:45 -0500, Orval Fairbairn
<orfairbairn@earthlink.net> wrote:

In article <8re4f7lg55quqco9245n3jfg0msl2paifl@4ax.com>,
Bill Snyder <bsnyder@airmail.net> wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:43:36 -0500, Orval Fairbairn
orfairbairn@earthlink.net> wrote:

In article <63r2f7ducv7edcioqmqus1r4ln81g06ve6@4ax.com>,
AGWFacts <AGWFacts@ipcc.org> wrote:

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:40:41 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

Reducing CO2 emmisions won't matter, because
CO2 has no influence on global warming.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2
levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- catoni52@sympatico.ca

All that the wbsits says is:

"Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
Arthur P. Smith
(Submitted on 29 Feb 2008)
A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect
is refuted. A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is
mathematically constrained to have an average temperature less than or
equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for
Earth prove that without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the
average temperature of Earth's surface would be at least 33 K lower than
what is observed.
Comments:
9 pages, 2 figures
Subjects:
Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (physics.ao-ph)
Cite as:
arXiv:0802.4324v1 [physics.ao-ph]
Submission history
From: Arthur Smith [view email]
[v1] Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:11:02 GMT (39kb)
Which authors of this paper are endorsers?"


Where's the beef?

It refutes the claim above that, " . . . CO2 has no influence on
global warming." Did Mommy forget to read you the quoted material?

Did Mommy forget to teach you basic study?

I don't believe the study of your lies and/or delusions is basic.
I'm an engineer, not a psychiatrist.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

 

[Bill Snyder]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:58:23 +0000 (UTC), Kaz Kylheku
<kaz@kylheku.com> wrote:

On 2011-12-21, Bill Ward <bward@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
The problem is, Jerry, that you don't understand the problem. The
surface of the Earth is heated by the Sun and cooled primarily by
conduction and convection. The surface radiation affected by GHGs is
already absorbed within a few meters and converted to heat.

Your reasoning is right based on your assumption, but this where I suspect you
might be going wrong.

What is the source for the claim that surface radiation is absorbed
in a few meters?

All the voices in his head say that.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

 

[Bill Ward]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:58:23 +0000, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

On 2011-12-21, Bill Ward <bward@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
The problem is, Jerry, that you don't understand the problem. The
surface of the Earth is heated by the Sun and cooled primarily by
conduction and convection. The surface radiation affected by GHGs is
already absorbed within a few meters and converted to heat.

Your reasoning is right based on your assumption, but this where I
suspect you might be going wrong.

What is the source for the claim that surface radiation is absorbed in a
few meters?

That's calculated from spectroscopic properties and the density of the
absorbing species. It varies with altitude and humidity, but is
generally considered to be on the order of a few meters for water and
tens of meters for CO2. I don't have any specific link at the moment,
but here are links to Miskolczi's work where he calculated the optical
depth, which depends on the absorbance, for a number of GHGs. Look at
figs. 3, 4, and 6. You'll need to understand local thermodynamic
equilibrium for it to make much sense:

<http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=503>
(Miskolczi E&E 2010 paper on optical depth)

<http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=504>
(vanAndel's "Note on Miskolczi's theory")

Specific references to extinction distance pop up occasionally, but I
can't seem to find one at the moment.

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

On 2011-12-23, Bill Ward <bward@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:58:23 +0000, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

On 2011-12-21, Bill Ward <bward@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
The problem is, Jerry, that you don't understand the problem. The
surface of the Earth is heated by the Sun and cooled primarily by
conduction and convection. The surface radiation affected by GHGs is
already absorbed within a few meters and converted to heat.

Your reasoning is right based on your assumption, but this where I
suspect you might be going wrong.

What is the source for the claim that surface radiation is absorbed in a
few meters?

That's calculated from spectroscopic properties and the density of the
absorbing species. It varies with altitude and humidity, but is
generally considered to be on the order of a few meters for water and
tens of meters for CO2. I don't have any specific link at the moment,
but here are links to Miskolczi's work where he calculated the optical
depth, which depends on the absorbance, for a number of GHGs. Look at
figs. 3, 4, and 6. You'll need to understand local thermodynamic
equilibrium for it to make much sense:

I see, so if the surface radiation is abosrbed and turned into heat within,
say, a few dozen meters, /regardless of the mixture of gases/, it does look
like this CO2 scaremongering really is a bunch of crap.

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

On 2011-12-23, Bill Snyder <bsnyder@airmail.net> wrote:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:58:23 +0000 (UTC), Kaz Kylheku
kaz@kylheku.com> wrote:

On 2011-12-21, Bill Ward <bward@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
The problem is, Jerry, that you don't understand the problem. The
surface of the Earth is heated by the Sun and cooled primarily by
conduction and convection. The surface radiation affected by GHGs is
already absorbed within a few meters and converted to heat.

Your reasoning is right based on your assumption, but this where I suspect you
might be going wrong.

What is the source for the claim that surface radiation is absorbed
in a few meters?

All the voices in his head say that.

Well, he has references for it. So, right or wrong, you're just shooting
the messenger.

 

[AGWFacts]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:13:05 -0600, Bill Snyder
<bsnyder@airmail.net> wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:58:31 -0600, Bill Ward
bward@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 23:41:27 +0000, Richard Dobson wrote:

On 21/12/2011 22:11, Eric Jacobsen wrote: .

The fact that it's happened before should make the bar very high for
claiming that the mechanisms for it happening now are different than in
the past.

But nobody is claiming the mechanisms are different. They still exist,
insofar as they can be quantified. The claim is that a new mechanism has
been ~added~, in the period of a few generations. That's the dsp bit -
it is a signal inside a fair amount of noise.

It should also make the bar very high for placing large
economic burdens on people and justifying transfer of large quantities
of wealth based on claims that "it's different this time".

I don't think that bar has been met, not even close.

Well it has always the case that not doing something is generally
cheaper than doing something! Prediction as a fundamental scientific
yardstick is clearly overrated and just plain inconvenient; best just to
wait and see, regardless of the magnitude of the possible consequence.
So, what level of evidence, what degree of thoroughness of the science,
would be required to lower that bar?

Evidence for, and explanation of, some plausible mechanism that allowed
CO2 to heat the surface would be a good start. Preferably one that
doesn't violate too many fundamental physical principles.

Translation: "I only saw the explanation 500 times! I need to see
it a few hundred thousand more times! Someone! Anyone! Post it
again!"

The fact that you don't want to believe X doesn't actually imply
that X violates anything. If that doesn't make sense to you, just
ignore it; it was mostly posted to appeal to the sane people
anyway.

It shows he is mentally ill.


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- catoni52@sympatico.ca

 

[AGWFacts]

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:19:01 +0000, Richard Dobson
<richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 21/12/2011 23:58, Bill Ward wrote:

Evidence for, and explanation of, some plausible mechanism that allowed
CO2 to heat the surface would be a good start. Preferably one that
doesn't violate too many fundamental physical principles.

Funny how the *OBSEREVED* explanation has been known for over 130
years.....

Well, you can start with the work of Tyndall:

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

Among many others.

Hopefully that was long enough ago to not be tarred with the
conspiracy-theory brush.

Joseph Fourier in 1824 and 1827
John Tyndall in 1859
Svante Arrhenius in 1896
C.J. Fox in 1909
A. Angstron in 1918
Chamberlain and Fowle in 1916
E.O. Hulburt in 1931
S.G. Callendar in 1937
Professor Gilbert Plass in 1950
Carl Sagan in 1960
Stephen Hawking in 1960
Isaac Asimov in 1968
Wally Broecker in 1975
Richard Feynman and "The Jasons" in 1980

Richard Dobson

--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- catoni52@sympatico.ca

 

[AGWFacts]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 19:30:14 -0600, Bill Snyder
<bsnyder@airmail.net> wrote:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:19:01 +0000, Richard Dobson
richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 21/12/2011 23:58, Bill Ward wrote:
..

Evidence for, and explanation of, some plausible mechanism that allowed
CO2 to heat the surface would be a good start. Preferably one that
doesn't violate too many fundamental physical principles.


Well, you can start with the work of Tyndall:

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

Hopefully that was long enough ago to not be tarred with the
conspiracy-theory brush.

My, you're optimistic. What do you want to bet that Tyndall won't
turn out to have been an agent of the Illuminati by the time he
gets done?

Or "The Masons." Or "The Jew."

I suspect Teh Konspiracy necessarily dates back at
least as far as anyone's been accumulating evidence that he
doesn't like.

--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- catoni52@sympatico.ca

 

[Kaz Kylheku]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.basics.]
On 2011-12-23, AGWFacts <AGWFacts@ipcc.org> wrote:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:19:01 +0000, Richard Dobson
richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 21/12/2011 23:58, Bill Ward wrote:

Evidence for, and explanation of, some plausible mechanism that allowed
CO2 to heat the surface would be a good start. Preferably one that
doesn't violate too many fundamental physical principles.

Funny how the *OBSEREVED* explanation has been known for over 130
years.....

Explanations aren't observed; observations are.

 

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <j5h7f7phm0aj1ut30pfrjdje9cjkg3aac9@4ax.com>,
Bill Snyder <bsnyder@airmail.net> wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 21:24:45 -0500, Orval Fairbairn
orfairbairn@earthlink.net> wrote:

In article <8re4f7lg55quqco9245n3jfg0msl2paifl@4ax.com>,
Bill Snyder <bsnyder@airmail.net> wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:43:36 -0500, Orval Fairbairn
orfairbairn@earthlink.net> wrote:

In article <63r2f7ducv7edcioqmqus1r4ln81g06ve6@4ax.com>,
AGWFacts <AGWFacts@ipcc.org> wrote:

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:40:41 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
allnor@tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

Reducing CO2 emmisions won't matter, because
CO2 has no influence on global warming.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2
levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- catoni52@sympatico.ca

All that the wbsits says is:

"Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
Arthur P. Smith
(Submitted on 29 Feb 2008)
A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect
is refuted. A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is
mathematically constrained to have an average temperature less than or
equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for
Earth prove that without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the
average temperature of Earth's surface would be at least 33 K lower than
what is observed.
Comments:
9 pages, 2 figures
Subjects:
Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (physics.ao-ph)
Cite as:
arXiv:0802.4324v1 [physics.ao-ph]
Submission history
From: Arthur Smith [view email]
[v1] Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:11:02 GMT (39kb)
Which authors of this paper are endorsers?"


Where's the beef?

It refutes the claim above that, " . . . CO2 has no influence on
global warming." Did Mommy forget to read you the quoted material?

Did Mommy forget to teach you basic study?

I don't believe the study of your lies and/or delusions is basic.
I'm an engineer, not a psychiatrist.

Where do you drive the train, or don't they even let you toot the
whistle?