[quote]
And that is where open peer review soon clears out any corruption of whatever nature.
{/quote]
And that's where you have it wrong. The don't have peer review, they have pal review. The only ones reviewing the data are the same ones who are in on the deal! People opposed are not "able" to review the data because they don't understand it.

---

And that is where open peer review soon clears out any corruption of whatever nature.

And that's where you have it wrong. The don't have peer review, they have pal review. The only ones reviewing the data are the same ones who are in on the deal! People opposed are not "able" to review the data because they don't understand it.

And that is where "non-pals" such as yourself are very welcome to scrutinise their data and their methods to argue openly to gain a better real-world truth. Just please note that any religious claims of "it just can't be so" is not regarded as Science. Neither is Marketing FUD regardless of what the Marketing pundits might claim.


Strange how Science is followed for what people want to hear, and rubbished when reality smacks you in the face...

Still our only one world,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Clearly the whole thing is a complete charade and this should now
be obvious to all. It would be unsafe to draw any conclusions regarding
is this global warming down to man or not. To do so could lead to the risk
of embarrassment on either side. What is so annoying is that any true facts
regarding mans real contribution to global warming may have been lost in
a sea of miss-information. This perpetuated by scientists who may have had
ulterior motives in colouring the facts for their own personal gains. This
could be the case on both sides of the global warming argument. So what are
the true facts? At the moment no one side can be trusted in what they produce
and the main culprits behind promoting all this miss-information must be
those who gain most from it financially. Yes, governments across the globe
are making vast amounts of money in the guise of "Green Tax's" out of this
global warming fiasco. Yet this planet has not got any green for this tax
being applied because it is not being spent wholemeal to make good any
damage man may be creating. Some money does go into tax benefits for those
who invest in erecting wind-farms, wind farms about the most inefficient
form of power generation one can possibly think of. Yes, they are green so
pollution free yet at 28% efficiency, UK figures, can only be considered
as a stop-gap to the real solution to pollution free power generation.
Were governments truly concerned about the burning of fossil fuels then all
those trillions of dollars earned from green tax's would be invested in
research to find alternatives to the burning of oil and so such. Well, this
is just not happening so where is all this money going then? "To shore-up
governments debts". Governments wont man made global warming likes there's
no tomorrow and they wish us to believe that we are all to blame for it.
If someone produced an alternative to the burning of fossil fuels you can
bet your life governments will find a way to outlaw it for the time being.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Clearly the whole thing is a complete charade ... lost in
a sea of miss-information. ... no one side can be trusted...

And such is the FUD and misinformation and silliness of conspiracy theories.


Meanwhile, there is 200 years of hard evidence that cannot be ignored all around us.

What is interesting is that the 'Global Warming' 'debate' does seem to be moving on to the further diversionary tactics and procrastinations of that it is all 'good for us', 'we're doing it but there isn't much effect', and that there is 'time yet to watch the world burn', and so on... At least there is now at least some of the deniers accepting that we're spewinf forth vast quantities of CO2 that far exceed anything else from nature. Even the (in)famous Watts-Up and his temperature conspiracy has been blown out of the water in that all the results have been proved to be completely true and accurate (See earlier in this thread). The warming is real.

As for doing something about it all, note:

Carbon emissions divide 'can be bridged'

... Nothing revolutionary is needed, they conclude, if every sector makes its appropriate cuts. And the cost would be small.

"At the beginning, the reductions are cost-neutral - or you can gain because they include things like energy efficiency that save fuel costs," said Joseph Alcamo, Unep's chief scientist.

"We didn't find that any technological breakthroughs were needed to close the gap."

Currently, global emissions of greenhouse gases each year are equivalent to about 48 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (48GtCO2e).

If nothing changes, that will probably rise to about 56 gigatonnes (Gt) per year by 2020.

Analysis from climate models, meanwhile, suggests that emissions ought to be down to about 44Gt per year in order to have a reasonable chance of meeting the goal of keeping the global average temperature rise since pre-industrial times below 2C.

That goal has widespread support across the international community, although more than half the world's governments prefer the tougher target of 1.5C. ...


The "re-spin" by the climate deniers of their 'Climategate' can only be expected. Already been debunked.

Meanwhile, in the real world, real things are happening and there is real Science investigating what and how things are happening. We already know enough and have seen enough that we need to move to less polluting ways sooner rather than later.

Shame the fossil fuels industry seems to intensely not want that...

I wonder if it is the new 'tougher' target of 1.5 deg C that has sparked the latest round of FUD and political fires...


Still our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

There was a long term cooling trend lasting a few decades back in the 1970's. Since CO-2 was increasing back then as it is now, this puts the lie to the assertion that man-made CO-2 production affects the temperature of the Earth in a warming direction. For me that is the end of story as it should be for anyone with a logical mind capable of logical thought. Perhaps we should falsely lay this off to Sulfur Dioxide emissions to compound the ignorance.

Please describe in detail how cutting CO-2 emissions from coal burning power plants will be cheaper and more energy efficient.

There was a long term cooling trend lasting a few decades back in the 1970's. Since CO-2 was increasing back then as it is now, this puts the lie to the assertion that man-made CO-2 production affects the temperature of the Earth in a warming direction. For me that is the end of story as it should be for anyone with a logical mind capable of logical thought. Perhaps we should falsely lay this off to Sulfur Dioxide emissions to compound the ignorance.

What's that? An old long-ago debunked media frenzy plus a bit of smog for fud? ;-) Or are you just testing my consistency... :-/

Just for you, if you would care to read the old story:

An easy-read popularist version:

New Scientist - Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s

Indeed they did. At least, a handful of scientific papers discussed the possibility of a new ice age at some point in the future, leading to some pretty sensational media coverage...

... A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.


Greater detail including a summary of the science, is given in:

The global cooling myth

... I should clarify that I’m talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press...

... Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40′s to the 70′s (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake...

... It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern (consistent with the nowadays accepted interpreation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols); at first, only NH records were available.

Sulphate aerosols have not increased as much as once feared (partly through efforts to combat acid rain); CO2 forcing is greater...

... Apparently, the peer review and editing process involved in scientific publication was sufficient to provide a sober view. This episode shows the scientific press in a very good light; and a clear contrast to the lack of any such process in the popular press, then and now.


And then a real good howler is in:

Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion

... Michael Crichton’s new novel “State of Fear” is about a self-important NGO hyping the science of the global warming to further the ends of evil eco-terrorists. The inevitable conclusion of the book is that global warming is a non-problem. A lesson for our times maybe? Unfortunately, I think not.

Like the recent movie “The Day After Tomorrow”, the novel addresses real scientific issues and controversies, but is similarly selective (and occasionally mistaken) about the basic science. ...


I hope those are to taste and worth reading for you.

Still our only one world,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

CLIMATEGATE SCANDAL RESURFACES

You said it brother. That's where I am at as well.

Again, nothing to bother with, and rather curiously so:

Two-year old turkey

The blogosphere is abuzz with the appearance of a second tranche of the emails stolen from CRU just before thanksgiving in 2009. ... and very little appears to be new in this batch. Indeed, even the out-of-context quotes aren’t that exciting, and are even less so in-context.

... Now, it just seems a little forced, and perhaps a symptom of the hacker’s frustration that nothing much has come of it all and that the media and conversation has moved on.

If anyone has any questions about anything they see that seems interesting, let us know in the comments...


All a nasty game to try to knock out some good leading researchers?

All a game of mud slinging and fud?...

All rather nasty still.

Still all our only world,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

And that is where "non-pals" such as yourself are very welcome to scrutinise their data and their methods to argue openly to gain a better real-world truth. Just please note that any religious claims of "it just can't be so" is not regarded as Science. Neither is Marketing FUD regardless of what the Marketing pundits might claim.


Strange how Science is followed for what people want to hear, and rubbished when reality smacks you in the face...

Still our only one world,
Martin

Sigh... This is still going on here?!?!

Martin, I think that you have hit the nail on the head with this one, though perhaps you neither realize it nor would agree with it.

An old friend of mine (who is a Physics professor) and I were discussing the frontiers of physics one afternoon. The subject of conversation eventually turned to the various string theories, and he enlightened me with the following words of wisdom:

In Physics, there is science and there is philosophy. If a particular theory cannot be falsified, it is philosophy not science. We don't understand enough about string theory (for now) to be able to falsify it, therefore (for now) it is philosophy.

To falsify a theory, one must be able to design and perform a repeatable experiment such that, if the theory is false, the experiment will produce a result that contradicts the theory.

The Earth's climate is a very complex and chaotic system, and we do not understand it anywhere near well enough to be able to design a falsification experiment for the theory that human action is adversely affecting the Earth's climate. Therefore, AGW (or whatever you wish to call it) is firmly in the philosophy camp for now, and quite likely will be so for the foreseeable future (after all, it is a chaotic system). How do I know that we do not understand it well enough? Show me a computer model such that when fed ALL (NO cherry picking) the past data and current data will reliably predict future changes to the climate. You can't. One does not exist.

But one may ask 'What about all the observational data taken today that shows changes?' Well, I am sure that you have all heard the old saw that 'Correlation does not imply causation'. Just because humanity is pumping a LOT of CO2 into the atmosphere does not prove that we are the sole cause (or even a slight cause) of the detected rise in CO2 levels. We just do not understand the carbon cycle well enough to make that claim yet (but this facet of the problem is probably the easiest of the various knots for us to unravel -- we are making great strides on it). There may be other mechanisms at work driving the CO2 changes that we are unaware of.

Furthermore, there is no real basis to state that the observed rising in current CO2 levels are driving a warming of the Earth's current climate. Yes, there has been some correlation between climate warming and CO2 levels during the Earth's history (a few Billion years, well before anything resembling modern humanity was around). But, the change in CO2 levels have lagged the climate changes in the past by a few centuries. Are the CO2 level changes in the past a cause of past climate changes? Looks to be more of an effect to me.

The one constant in the Earth's climate is that it is continuously changing. It always has ever since there has been a climate on Earth and it always will as long as there is a climate on Earth. One thousand years ago, well before industrial activity started pumping out CO2, the Earth was a lot 'warmer' than even today -- the Medieval Climate Optimum (MCO). A few hundred years ago, there was the so-called Little Ice Age (LIA) where the Earth's climate was somewhat 'colder'. These natural variations in climate (several degrees C in each direction) would be difficult to ascribe to human CO2 activity, and we are still in the ramp-up from the LIA only just now approaching the average value if one considers the last 2000 years.

Is climate changing? YES!!!

Are we making it worse by pumping CO2 into the air? I don't know, and neither does anyone else. ANYONE, 'warmist' or 'denier', that says we are or are not because the science is settled on the subject is a liar.

IF we ARE making it worse, just how much of the changes are due to our CO2 emissions, and how much is due to non-human causes? Again, I don't know, and neither does anyone else.

As I have stated before, AGW is philosophy, and from the behavior of its proponents and detractors a good case could be made that AGW more properly belongs to that infamous subset of philosophy known as religion. We have two groups of scientists who are making unsupported claims that science is on their side, and both groups have swayed the masses who (lacking enough scientific training to spot the B.S. being spouted) must take it on faith that one or the other group is right. Why are these two groups (deniers and warmists) doing this? Simple... Follow the money. Scientists need money to do things like perform research for publication, as well as things such as food, clothing, and shelter.

Most of the 'warmists' appear to work in government and/or academia. That is to say they chase grant money. Most of the 'deniers' seem to work in industry, especially the fossil-fuel industry. The temptation must be mighty great to compromise their scientific integrity to help with their grant applications and/or continued employment.

Now to the email dumps known as 'Climategate I and II'. They paint a rather ugly picture of a group of scientists of the 'warmist' persuasion that have cast their integrity to the four winds in the name of telling people (such as the IPCC)'what they want to hear'. This group has apparently (even over the objection of one of their own) chosen which data to base their research on to produce the results they desired, ignoring parts of the data which would contradict their desired result (namely, AGW). They discussed destroying their email 'paper trail' because they knew should it ever become public there would be... trouble. They convinced US Govt. agencies to assist in suppressing data inconvenient to the AGW cause.

A previous poster (Dena Wiltsie) mentioned problems with peer review in relation to this matter. This clique of 'warmists' even intimated a major peer-reviewed journal in the field to start rejecting for review (much less publication) papers that did not agree with the 'party line (AGW).

In short, this group of 'warmists' have sold their scientific souls in exchange for money, power, and fame. What will happen to them? Most likely nothing. Not even a slap on the wrist for Climategate I, and will likely get the same for Climategate II. (Oh, by the way, I snagged a copy of the data dumps, but no longer have I... I read it, though. Both I and II are VERY informative. I still have II.) The odds of anything happening to these 'warmists' are even lower than the odds of Obama getting impeached for his naughties (either real or imagined). In other words, 'Not Gonna Happen!'. These 'warmists' are too well entrenched in the power structure.

Now, before you get your knickers in a twist that I am only dumping on the 'warmists', please consider that I didn't think the 'deniers' needed any help being condemned in the court of public opinion. After all, they work for *cough*big oil*cough*.

The only rational position is that of skeptic, or to continue the religious metaphor, 'Agnostic'. That is to say "I don't know". Both the 'warmist Fundies' and the 'denier Atheists' are too full of (forgive the figure of speech) hot air and/or organic fertilizer to be believed.

Then, what should we do? There are plenty of perfectly valid arguments both from the science of chemistry and from economics (as well as from a great many other disciplines) that indicate that we should stop burning fossil fuels for energy. They are too valuable for other uses. There is no need to invoke some 'warmist Devil' and scare the bejeebus out of people with unsupported predictions of AGW fire and brimstone. Nor do we need to stick our heads in the sand and cling to the status quo as the 'deniers' would wish. Instead, let us calmly and rationally proceed and wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and onto alternatives like well supported science and economics indicate we should.

Now, in the interests of full disclosure, I have studied climate and other related topics for almost 40 years. In the mid 70s, the CO2/AGW stuff occurred to me and has been one of the driving forces behind my continued studies of the subject. My gut reaction says that we are likely having some effect on climate, but it is not science. If one made public policy based on a bad feeling in one's guts, first thing you know spicy food would be outlawed. *wink*

Anyway, have a nice day.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

You really have to sit back Martin and reflect on what MajorKomg has
written here. For the state of play regarding global warming/man made
global warming is as MajorKong has stated. Until one gets to grips
with what is natural climate and natural climate change then no one
can as yet state if any occurrence of late here has been unnatural
in event.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

+1

---

Please describe in detail how cutting CO-2 emissions from coal burning power plants will be cheaper and more energy efficient.

It is more a case of we are subsidising industrial CO2 emissions by so far not charging them for the pollution and damage that they are causing.

Just one example of an alternative is:

Algae fuel firms face moment of truth


There are also options to make the dirty fossil fuels clean also.

All very doable and for far far less cost than the cost of destroying the planet as we know it.

Still all our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

You really have to sit back Martin and reflect on what MajorKomg has
written here. For the state of play regarding global warming/man made
global warming is as MajorKong has stated. Until one gets to grips
with what is natural climate and natural climate change then no one
can as yet state if any occurrence of late here has been unnatural
in event.

That was certainly the case back in the 1970's and earlier when noone had cared to look. There is scientific (philosophical proceedings) back from over 100 years earlier that cautioned that we may well change the composition of our atmosphere and the climate itself due to industrial scale atmospheric pollution.

It wasn't until President Nixon that the danger of Global Warming and Climate Change was realised for real... All our science since then has confirmed those first realisations.


We have long since moved from 'philosophy' and 'hypothesis' to now be arguing over the fine detail and the near term 'when'.

Just like trying to predict an earthquake or trying to predict exactly when an unmaintained bridge will collapse, we do not know the exact when and how of any sudden climactic shifts that will be forced to occur. What we do know for sure is that we are pushing ever harder and ever faster. Man's industrial output of CO2 far exceeds anything natural and any possible natural variability ever seen in the entire existence of this planet. (If anyone knows any different, please explain with your evidence. Claims of it "Just can't be so" is not science...)


Thanks to Major Kong for a very thoughtful piece. If we were back in the 1960's or earlier, I would agree with his view. Our more recent investigations and knowledge shows otherwise.

Meanwhile, Big Business, Marketing, profits and politics roll onwards, excruciatingly. All to our cost.

For anyone still unbelieving that increasing the concentration of CO2 can have such a significant effect upon the heat retained from the sun, see for yourself this simple physics demonstration:

Iain Stewart demonstrates infrared radiation absorption by CO2

Note how the candle is still visible, but it's thermal image is lost as the concentration of CO2 is increased. Our sun radiates most energy as visible light (which is why we see the light that we do). The heat re-radiated from the Earth's surface is blocked/absorbed by the CO2 and various other gasses. Industry is increasing the concentration of CO2 faster than natural processes can scrub that CO2 from the atmosphere. That increase is directly measured every day. That increase increases the proportion of heat that is trapped on our Earth each day. That then causes the ice to melt and the average temperature to rise...

Our weather systems and the overall climate are very sensitive to that average temperature... And we are hopelessly dependant on our climate for many things...

Is that still merely an imaginary philosophy?


Still our only planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

All very doable and for far far less cost than the cost of destroying the planet as we know it.

FUD!

We have zero data on how much CO2 and/or other greenhouse gases humans can release and not cause damage. Without that data your FUD can't tell us if we have to wage global thermonuclear war to get our emissions under control by sending the 1% who survive back into the stone age or if cuts of 5% a year, something within reason and technology, are enough. Until those numbers become more than just philosophy, all you are doing is spreading FUD.

It doesn't mean we shouldn't build more Fukushima Daiichi power plants to get the horribly polluting coal ones off line PDQ!

FUD sells!

---

You really have to sit back Martin and reflect on what MajorKomg has
written here. For the state of play regarding global warming/man made
global warming is as MajorKong has stated. Until one gets to grips
with what is natural climate and natural climate change then no one
can as yet state if any occurrence of late here has been unnatural
in event.

That was certainly the case back in the 1970's and earlier when noone had cared to look. There is scientific (philosophical proceedings) back from over 100 years earlier that cautioned that we may well change the composition of our atmosphere and the climate itself due to industrial scale atmospheric pollution.

It wasn't until President Nixon that the danger of Global Warming and Climate Change was realised for real... All our science since then has confirmed those first realisations.(1)


We have long since moved from 'philosophy' and 'hypothesis' to now be arguing over the fine detail and the near term 'when'.

Just like trying to predict an earthquake or trying to predict exactly when an unmaintained bridge will collapse, we do not know the exact when and how of any sudden climactic shifts that will be forced to occur. What we do know for sure is that we are pushing ever harder and ever faster. Man's industrial output of CO2 far exceeds anything natural and any possible natural variability ever seen in the entire existence of this planet. (If anyone knows any different, please explain with your evidence. Claims of it "Just can't be so" is not science...)(2)


Thanks to Major Kong for a very thoughtful piece. If we were back in the 1960's or earlier, I would agree with his view. Our more recent investigations and knowledge shows otherwise.

Meanwhile, Big Business, Marketing, profits and politics roll onwards, excruciatingly. All to our cost.(3)

For anyone still unbelieving that increasing the concentration of CO2 can have such a significant effect upon the heat retained from the sun, see for yourself this simple physics demonstration:

Iain Stewart demonstrates infrared radiation absorption by CO2

Note how the candle is still visible, but it's thermal image is lost as the concentration of CO2 is increased.(4) Our sun radiates most energy as visible light (which is why we see the light that we do).(5) The heat re-radiated from the Earth's surface is blocked/absorbed by the CO2 and various other gasses. Industry is increasing the concentration of CO2 faster than natural processes can scrub that CO2 from the atmosphere. That increase is directly measured every day. That increase increases the proportion of heat that is trapped on our Earth each day. That then causes the ice to melt and the average temperature to rise...(6)

Our weather systems and the overall climate are very sensitive to that average temperature... And we are hopelessly dependant on our climate for many things...

Is that still merely an imaginary philosophy?(7)


Still our only planet,
Martin

(1) No, you cannot make this claim. Science, in this matter, has confirmed jack diddly squat. It cannot, until our understanding of the subject has advanced to the point where we can design and perform a controlled, repeatable falsification experiment. This won't be anytime soon.

Now, you could say that 'the evidence suggests', and yes, it does... but that is not confirmation.

(2) Note the bottom right graph (f).



Web site that figure is from, citing sources: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-2.htm

At several times during the past the CO2 concentration in the air has been in the range of about 5000 ppm, maybe as high as about 7000 ppm. What is it today? About 400 ppm?

Also note the middle left graph (b). It is interesting to note that the MCO (~1000 CE. a several degree C warming) and the LIA (~1700-ish CE, a several degree C cooling) both happened during a period of relatively stable CO2 concentration (about 280 ppm). This certainly raises the possibility that what we are experiencing today might have nothing to do with CO2 concentration and might be due to some other cause.

(3) Interesting, from the tone of your statement, you seem to consider these as enemies, but in reality they are the only hope the Warmists have for getting something done. Only Big Business can do enough to do any good, and they must be motivated by profits, of which the corrupt politicians are gonna want their cut. And you are gonna need marketing to sell the idea to the public, lest they riot when their standard of living suddenly plummets. You know... pretty much what the Warmists are doing right now... heh heh.

(4) I don't think that anyone can dispute that CO2, like a great many other chemicals, has absorption bands within the IR part of the EM spectrum.

CO2: http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC

Water (H2O): http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C7732185&Units=SI&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=1#IR-SPEC

Now, I will be referring to these charts later, so go ahead and switch reversed X to normal X and cm-1 to 'mu'm (micrometers) so that they will match up (kinda sorta) with other graphs...

That said, merely demonstrating that CO2 absorbs some IR does nothing to prove AGW. Lots of things in the air absorb IR. H2O being a prime example. Heck, even O2 does. The HARD part, the part we do NOT understand is the 'what happens from then on' part. It is a sequence of one HARD problem after another.

(5) Uhh... The sun emits mostly in the IR. IIRC, its about 5% UV, 43% visible, and 52% IR. A body will emit EM radiation in a rather well known manner depending on its temperature (Blackbody radiation). For instance, here is a plot of what the sun emits:



As you can see, the sun approximates a Blackbody at 5250 degrees C, and from the chart we can see parts are absorbed before ground level, along with the primary culprits. CO2 only has a couple of tiny parts around 2000 nm (or 2 micrometers). Bear in mind that this is incoming.

As to outgoing, the Earth approximates a Blackbody at about 16 degrees C. Its shape is broader and less steep, but the peak is around 10000 nm (10 micrometers). Check the CO2 and H2O charts. CO2 markedly absorbs at around 4.2 micrometers, and again at 14 to 16 micrometers. H2O starts in that chart at around 4 micrometers and rather continuously absorbs all the way down through the rest of the chart. It is pretty much an equal opportunity absorber. Water is a rather potent GHG, but it is not seriously considered a threat because of various feedback mechanisms that mitigate its effects.

Might not CO2 have some similar feedback mechanisms that we do not understand yet? It might, especially in light of a prediction that many of the Warmist's models make. It seems that per these models, certain layers of the atmosphere should be... well, warming up. And of the many studies conducted looking for this warming, only ONE has found any evidence of it at all. Nope, the science is far from settled.

(6) Circular reasoning. Merely restating a 'theory' does nothing to help prove it.

(7) Uhh.. I did not use the word imaginary. What I said was that AGW was Philosophy, not Physics, because we do not understand the processes involved well enough to construct and perform a controlled, repeatable falsification experiment. It may very well be true. But then again, it may not. Currently, it is something that you have to take on Faith.

We don't know... yet. And, it could very well be that we never will.

Have a nice day.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

At several times during the past the CO2 concentration in the air has been in the range of about 5000 ppm, maybe as high as about 7000 ppm. What is it today? About 400 ppm?

This is not the first that I've come across these high ranging figures for
past CO2 levels. A book I read on UK archaeology, published late 1960's,
stated that in past times CO2 levels in the atmosphere were as much as 14
times that what we experienced today. Given that this book was written
late 60's and then CO2 concentration was around 320 ppm you can derive
at a figure of near 5000 ppm for past times. Casting my memory back to
the time I read this book I vaguely remember references to the level of
CO2 during the 1400's being higher than that of the 1960's but MajorKong's
data does not support this though.

In all, a nice piece of work by MajorKong and it is clear that CO2 levels
can rise and fall markedly even when man was not in a position to influence
it. The graphs do make it clear that CO2 in the atmosphere has increased
exponentially since the mid 1900's. If this level was to increase at
the same rate over the next 50 years we would be seeing levels of around
800 ppm. To be honest no one knows if this is good or bad for our planet
yet in 50 years time man is just not going to be consuming fossil fuels
like he has done up till now. In years ahead mans contribution to CO2
production will have already started to fall-off, advances in technology
will have contributed mainly to this.

Still, we can't be complacent about this man-made global warming issue
and I don't think many of us here really are. MajorKong is searching for real
evidence to support the case and of yet he has not found any. So to be
honest I have to agree too with MajorKong that we wont possibly know the true
answer to the question until after it ceases to be an issue.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

So one argument here is without absolute 100% proof, there is no global warming issue.

It's munchkin land and the requirement is for the global warming argument to be most sincerely dead,

Oh, and turn off those AC units, that's not sweat pouring out of you, its glistening.

So one argument here is without absolute 100% proof, there is no global warming issue.

It's munchkin land and the requirement is for the global warming argument to be most sincerely dead,

Oh, and turn off those AC units, that's not sweat pouring out of you, its glistening.

No one has said it isn't getting warmer....

What is being said is to stop putting humans at the center of the universe and that the universe must revolve around them, that they are the cause of the universe. That everything that happens to the climate must be caused by humans. As long as the warmists cling to this all they have to offer is a religion, not physics.

Prove it is CO2. You may have to clean up the flawed CPDN models which do not represent the realities as we now understand the atmosphere. Specifically in the vertical dispersal of CO2, which NASA spacecraft have measured as very different than the assumptions in the models. Otherwise GIGO rules.

---

OK -- I'd accept that humans (or rather the concomitants of modern human civilization) are not the only factor. There are likely geological/astrophysical components as well -- as there has been for the planet always.

I guess I'd accept that humans *are* ** a ** factor as well. I suppose as long as humanity can live with and accept that there IS global warming and that humanity can't (or rather won't) do anything to mitigate the warming, then the best that can be expected is to live in a warmer world. Sell off all your low lying coastal property to those who are flat out warming deniers.

I'd suggest that all TeaParty partisans need work on great deals in that coastal property and at the same time refuse insurance for flooding and any government aid for disaster relief. After all, that stuff is socialism <smile>.

No one has said it isn't getting warmer....

What is being said is to stop putting humans at the center of the universe and that the universe must revolve around them, that they are the cause of the universe. That everything that happens to the climate must be caused by humans. As long as the warmists cling to this all they have to offer is a religion, not physics.

After all, that stuff is socialism

Sorry BubbaAZ, that Stuff is Cold Hard Worked For Cash, which goes to The Insurance Premiums.

And Cold Hard Worked For Cash bought The Ocean View.

No Denying how Warm it is On A Sunny Summer Day at The Beach. Sweet.

Although I much prefer The Cool/Cold Blistery Days at The Beach. I just Roll That Way.

Capitalism and Climate Change. Oh How Sweet It Is.

SPF50Dull

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!