Name the Major Flaw In This Signal Processing Analysis Probl

[AGWFacts]

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 03:21:53 +0000 (UTC), Kaz Kylheku
<kaz@kylheku.com> wrote:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:16:43 -0700, 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.....

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

Explanations aren't observed; observations are.

Phenomena are observed; the greenhouse effect is a phenomena.


--
"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]

On 2011-12-23, AGWFacts <AGWFacts@ipcc.org> wrote:

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 03:21:53 +0000 (UTC), Kaz Kylheku
kaz@kylheku.com> wrote:
Explanations aren't observed; observations are.

Phenomena are observed; the greenhouse effect is a phenomena.

Or, rather, it is a phenomenon. Or a syndrome of multiple phenomena.

 

[fungus]

On Dec 23, 3:02 am, Kaz Kylheku <k...@kylheku.com> wrote:

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.

And we can expect your revolutionary scientific
paper to be published for peer review ... .when?