how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[SSDD]

'

I am glad that you feel lucky.

It must be some compensation, considering the rest of your situation in life.

.

What? Not being a bitter, pissy, whiny, toady ike you. I'll take it over being your sort any day.

 

[flacaltenn]

It seems to me what is missing here is the realization that the only thing that matters is energy in and energy out from the perspective of the TOA. Top of the atmosphere. Is there anybody who still questions that increasing the concentration of GHG in the atmosphere has the result of less energy out?

You've seen me defend the basic physics of GreenHouse here, so literally I don't oppose your generalization. HOWEVER, when you look at the numbers and complexity of the problem, I highly doubt the MAGNITUDE of the effect of additional CO2 to the atmosphere --- which is what this scuffle is all about..

In addition all the BAD THINGS that are prophesized by the Catastrophic Warmers don't happen because of just additional GHGases from cow farts (charged against man's contribution of course). It depends on some very sketchy assumptions about feedback mechanisms that are poorly measured and understood and modeled even worse...

Consider: Comparing CO2 emissions to CO2 levels

My view is that, ultimately, all that matters, is how are going to continue to obtain the energy that we need, and what will it cost us, given what we know now.

To me it's unarguable that, as we consume the remaining fossil fuels given us, co2 concentration will continue to rise, and energy out the TOA will continue to fall. There is the possibility that something that we don't know about will rescue us from ourselves, but that seems unlikely to me. It seems more likely that it will be even worse than we predict as the co2 sequestered in the arctic tundra adds to ours, things will be worse that just AGW predictions.

As AGW proceeds, two civilization facts will be problamatic and expensive. The location of our cities as sea level rises, and the location of our food sources as rain patterns change.

Over the next 100 years or so we will run out of the current mix of fossil fuels anyway and have no real alternative to sustainable sources.

So the question is, how do we allocate resources over that time?

Some will go into saving our cities and maintaining our food supplies.

Some will go into trying to stretch our fossil fuel supplies as long as possible. For one thing to maintain production of all of the material that we only know how to make from fossil feedstocks now.

Some will go into re-energizing the world sustainably.

Huge numbers.

There is nothing but good that can come from a very aggressive start on that extremely difficult time period. Today most of the energy that we produce is wasted. Let's start there at the very least.

Having spent WAAAY too much in this Environment forum already -- can we delay jumping the fix until we've explored the problem? You're an engineer (you say) so lets' go to basics.

1) Have you seen the CO2 forcing function that describes temp rise versus concentration? Are you aware that it is logarithmic and already very much saturated? It's a simple little thing. Says that for any past rise in W/m2 due to CO2 -- you have to approx DOUBLE that amount of CO2 to add the SAME W/m2 the next time. Where do you think we are on the curve?

[/IMG]

2) Are you aware that at times when dinos roamed Pasadena, that CO2 were 10 times higher than today? Life flourished, doom didn't happen and the plants were thrilled.

3) The contribution of CO2 to the models is actually tiny compared to the hysteria of the hockey stick or other modeling projections.. It's the fairytale of the feedbacks that make this an issue at all. So ------------ Do you believe that we live on such a LEMON of planet that a temperature forcing of 2 or 3 degF will set off a literal fuel air bomb and destroy the planet? How much faith does it take to believe that? Could we possibly work a trade with the Romulans for a fixer-upper in their galaxy??

4) Please don't tell me we're not conserving enough.. And please don't tell me you believe that ANY of the items on the list of alternate energy is REALLY an alternative to 24/7/365.25 power generation.. I can't bust another rib laughing at yet another dupe....

 

[PMZ]

You've seen me defend the basic physics of GreenHouse here, so literally I don't oppose your generalization. HOWEVER, when you look at the numbers and complexity of the problem, I highly doubt the MAGNITUDE of the effect of additional CO2 to the atmosphere --- which is what this scuffle is all about..

In addition all the BAD THINGS that are prophesized by the Catastrophic Warmers don't happen because of just additional GHGases from cow farts (charged against man's contribution of course). It depends on some very sketchy assumptions about feedback mechanisms that are poorly measured and understood and modeled even worse...

Consider: Comparing CO2 emissions to CO2 levels

My view is that, ultimately, all that matters, is how are going to continue to obtain the energy that we need, and what will it cost us, given what we know now.

To me it's unarguable that, as we consume the remaining fossil fuels given us, co2 concentration will continue to rise, and energy out the TOA will continue to fall. There is the possibility that something that we don't know about will rescue us from ourselves, but that seems unlikely to me. It seems more likely that it will be even worse than we predict as the co2 sequestered in the arctic tundra adds to ours, things will be worse that just AGW predictions.

As AGW proceeds, two civilization facts will be problamatic and expensive. The location of our cities as sea level rises, and the location of our food sources as rain patterns change.

Over the next 100 years or so we will run out of the current mix of fossil fuels anyway and have no real alternative to sustainable sources.

So the question is, how do we allocate resources over that time?

Some will go into saving our cities and maintaining our food supplies.

Some will go into trying to stretch our fossil fuel supplies as long as possible. For one thing to maintain production of all of the material that we only know how to make from fossil feedstocks now.

Some will go into re-energizing the world sustainably.

Huge numbers.

There is nothing but good that can come from a very aggressive start on that extremely difficult time period. Today most of the energy that we produce is wasted. Let's start there at the very least.

Having spent WAAAY too much in this Environment forum already -- can we delay jumping the fix until we've explored the problem? You're an engineer (you say) so lets' go to basics.

1) Have you seen the CO2 forcing function that describes temp rise versus concentration? Are you aware that it is logarithmic and already very much saturated? It's a simple little thing. Says that for any past rise in W/m2 due to CO2 -- you have to approx DOUBLE that amount of CO2 to add the SAME W/m2 the next time. Where do you think we are on the curve?

[/IMG]

2) Are you aware that at times when dinos roamed Pasadena, that CO2 were 10 times higher than today? Life flourished, doom didn't happen and the plants were thrilled.

3) The contribution of CO2 to the models is actually tiny compared to the hysteria of the hockey stick or other modeling projections.. It's the fairytale of the feedbacks that make this an issue at all. So ------------ Do you believe that we live on such a LEMON of planet that a temperature forcing of 2 or 3 degF will set off a literal fuel air bomb and destroy the planet? How much faith does it take to believe that? Could we possibly work a trade with the Romulans for a fixer-upper in their galaxy??

4) Please don't tell me we're not conserving enough.. And please don't tell me you believe that ANY of the items on the list of alternate energy is REALLY an alternative to 24/7/365.25 power generation.. I can't bust another rib laughing at yet another dupe....

I hear ya. Put it off to the next generation. Let them clean up our mess. You got more imporatant things to spend money on. Putting gas in your pick up truck for instance.

Aren't you glad the previous generations didn't think like you?

 

[flacaltenn]

Consider: Comparing CO2 emissions to CO2 levels

My view is that, ultimately, all that matters, is how are going to continue to obtain the energy that we need, and what will it cost us, given what we know now.

To me it's unarguable that, as we consume the remaining fossil fuels given us, co2 concentration will continue to rise, and energy out the TOA will continue to fall. There is the possibility that something that we don't know about will rescue us from ourselves, but that seems unlikely to me. It seems more likely that it will be even worse than we predict as the co2 sequestered in the arctic tundra adds to ours, things will be worse that just AGW predictions.

As AGW proceeds, two civilization facts will be problamatic and expensive. The location of our cities as sea level rises, and the location of our food sources as rain patterns change.

Over the next 100 years or so we will run out of the current mix of fossil fuels anyway and have no real alternative to sustainable sources.

So the question is, how do we allocate resources over that time?

Some will go into saving our cities and maintaining our food supplies.

Some will go into trying to stretch our fossil fuel supplies as long as possible. For one thing to maintain production of all of the material that we only know how to make from fossil feedstocks now.

Some will go into re-energizing the world sustainably.

Huge numbers.

There is nothing but good that can come from a very aggressive start on that extremely difficult time period. Today most of the energy that we produce is wasted. Let's start there at the very least.

Having spent WAAAY too much in this Environment forum already -- can we delay jumping the fix until we've explored the problem? You're an engineer (you say) so lets' go to basics.

1) Have you seen the CO2 forcing function that describes temp rise versus concentration? Are you aware that it is logarithmic and already very much saturated? It's a simple little thing. Says that for any past rise in W/m2 due to CO2 -- you have to approx DOUBLE that amount of CO2 to add the SAME W/m2 the next time. Where do you think we are on the curve?

[/IMG]

2) Are you aware that at times when dinos roamed Pasadena, that CO2 were 10 times higher than today? Life flourished, doom didn't happen and the plants were thrilled.

3) The contribution of CO2 to the models is actually tiny compared to the hysteria of the hockey stick or other modeling projections.. It's the fairytale of the feedbacks that make this an issue at all. So ------------ Do you believe that we live on such a LEMON of planet that a temperature forcing of 2 or 3 degF will set off a literal fuel air bomb and destroy the planet? How much faith does it take to believe that? Could we possibly work a trade with the Romulans for a fixer-upper in their galaxy??

4) Please don't tell me we're not conserving enough.. And please don't tell me you believe that ANY of the items on the list of alternate energy is REALLY an alternative to 24/7/365.25 power generation.. I can't bust another rib laughing at yet another dupe....

I hear ya. Put it off to the next generation. Let them clean up our mess. You got more imporatant things to spend money on. Putting gas in your pick up truck for instance.

Aren't you glad the previous generations didn't think like you?

I'm for cleaning REAL MESSES --- not imaginary maybe ones.. Like the national deficit, social security, and foreign policy. I'm for using that Trillion dollars in remedial carbon abatement for saving lives here and in the 3rd world. Instead of wasting it on windmills and defunct sucker bets on solar companies..

OR even better --- cleaning up REAL pollution --- not a molecule which in no concrete terms is a pollutant anywhere but in the minds of the left and the halls of the EPA.

 

[PMZ]

Having spent WAAAY too much in this Environment forum already -- can we delay jumping the fix until we've explored the problem? You're an engineer (you say) so lets' go to basics.

1) Have you seen the CO2 forcing function that describes temp rise versus concentration? Are you aware that it is logarithmic and already very much saturated? It's a simple little thing. Says that for any past rise in W/m2 due to CO2 -- you have to approx DOUBLE that amount of CO2 to add the SAME W/m2 the next time. Where do you think we are on the curve?

[/IMG]

2) Are you aware that at times when dinos roamed Pasadena, that CO2 were 10 times higher than today? Life flourished, doom didn't happen and the plants were thrilled.

3) The contribution of CO2 to the models is actually tiny compared to the hysteria of the hockey stick or other modeling projections.. It's the fairytale of the feedbacks that make this an issue at all. So ------------ Do you believe that we live on such a LEMON of planet that a temperature forcing of 2 or 3 degF will set off a literal fuel air bomb and destroy the planet? How much faith does it take to believe that? Could we possibly work a trade with the Romulans for a fixer-upper in their galaxy??

4) Please don't tell me we're not conserving enough.. And please don't tell me you believe that ANY of the items on the list of alternate energy is REALLY an alternative to 24/7/365.25 power generation.. I can't bust another rib laughing at yet another dupe....

I hear ya. Put it off to the next generation. Let them clean up our mess. You got more imporatant things to spend money on. Putting gas in your pick up truck for instance.

Aren't you glad the previous generations didn't think like you?

I'm for cleaning REAL MESSES --- not imaginary maybe ones.. Like the national deficit, social security, and foreign policy. I'm for using that Trillion dollars in remedial carbon abatement for saving lives here and in the 3rd world. Instead of wasting it on windmills and defunct sucker bets on solar companies..

OR even better --- cleaning up REAL pollution --- not a molecule which in no concrete terms is a pollutant anywhere but in the minds of the left and the halls of the EPA.

I don't know. This looks like a real mess to me.

http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/solomon09pnas.pdf

Who knows. Perhaps some superhero is out there to save us. There are undoubtably babies being born today who will see the end of civilization on earth. You need to explain to them why gas for your pickup today was more important than their future.

 

[gslack]

I hear ya. Put it off to the next generation. Let them clean up our mess. You got more imporatant things to spend money on. Putting gas in your pick up truck for instance.

Aren't you glad the previous generations didn't think like you?

I'm for cleaning REAL MESSES --- not imaginary maybe ones.. Like the national deficit, social security, and foreign policy. I'm for using that Trillion dollars in remedial carbon abatement for saving lives here and in the 3rd world. Instead of wasting it on windmills and defunct sucker bets on solar companies..

OR even better --- cleaning up REAL pollution --- not a molecule which in no concrete terms is a pollutant anywhere but in the minds of the left and the halls of the EPA.

I don't know. This looks like a real mess to me.

http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/solomon09pnas.pdf

Who knows. Perhaps some superhero is out there to save us. There are undoubtably babies being born today who will see the end of civilization on earth. You need to explain to them why gas for your pickup today was more important than their future.

In one post you managed exaggerate and understate the issue... Amazing, your BS has no bounds..

No babies born today will see the end of civilization due to CO2 emissions panicky pants. And it's not only about gas for a pickup. It's about supplying energy and fuel to the entire world as reliably and efficiently as possible not just wealthy people with extra free space to set up solar panels or wind farms,the extra water or rivers to use hydroelectric, the ability to use nuclear power or the agricultural power to use ethanol. It's so everyone can have a lighted living room, have transportation, and care for themselves..

 

[westwall]

I hear ya. Put it off to the next generation. Let them clean up our mess. You got more imporatant things to spend money on. Putting gas in your pick up truck for instance.

Aren't you glad the previous generations didn't think like you?

I'm for cleaning REAL MESSES --- not imaginary maybe ones.. Like the national deficit, social security, and foreign policy. I'm for using that Trillion dollars in remedial carbon abatement for saving lives here and in the 3rd world. Instead of wasting it on windmills and defunct sucker bets on solar companies..

OR even better --- cleaning up REAL pollution --- not a molecule which in no concrete terms is a pollutant anywhere but in the minds of the left and the halls of the EPA.

I don't know. This looks like a real mess to me.

http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/solomon09pnas.pdf

Who knows. Perhaps some superhero is out there to save us. There are undoubtably babies being born today who will see the end of civilization on earth. You need to explain to them why gas for your pickup today was more important than their future.

Your link goes to a white screen but I can guess it is for some activist group that bears more resemblance to a loony religion than any scientific group. What's truly sad is you think that warmth is going to end the world when he have LOADS of actual data that says otherwise. On the other hand you whistle along ignoring these big rocks flying by our planet that really CAN (and nearly have on at least one occasion) end life on this planet. We are the first creatures on this planet that have the ability to prevent a catastrophic hit on this planet and you fools would rather waste time and money on a non issue all with the goal of imposing a one world government.

What a complete ass.

 

[PMZ]

Well, the ostriches are lined up this morning, butts in the air, heads in the ground, as big oil requires of them. Notice that when confronted with the bare facts they abandon their pretend science act and revert to the call of the ignorant throughout history. Name calling.

They are simply irrelevant. Responsible people are tackling the problem as well as helping those already struck by the bow wave of AGW caused extreme weather. We'll get through as Americans always have. By hard work, responsible behavior, innovation, and enlightened politics. They will continue to ***** and moan and drag the country down and claim entitlement to better treatment.

Which comes first, ignorance or irresponsibility? I think that they go hand in hand to nowhere.

Extinction is a demanding teacher for both those who adapt and those who don't. Watch and learn from those who presume entitlement over truth.

 

[westwall]

Well, the ostriches are lined up this morning, butts in the air, heads in the ground, as big oil requires of them. Notice that when confronted with the bare facts they abandon their pretend science act and revert to the call of the ignorant throughout history. Name calling.

They are simply irrelevant. Responsible people are tackling the problem as well as helping those already struck by the bow wave of AGW caused extreme weather. We'll get through as Americans always have. By hard work, responsible behavior, innovation, and enlightened politics. They will continue to ***** and moan and drag the country down and claim entitlement to better treatment.

Which comes first, ignorance or irresponsibility? I think that they go hand in hand to nowhere.

Extinction is a demanding teacher for both those who adapt and those who don't. Watch and learn from those who presume entitlement over truth.

The ostrich is you. Please show us solid evidence for heat being a killer. Not some computer model fiction, but real observed data. I can show plenty that when it has been warm the planet prospered. I can also show plenty that when it is cold the planet suffers.

I can also show plenty that when a big rock hits us it is really bad for us. My head may be in the sand but your is pressed so firmly up the ass of the collectivists you can't see daylight.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well, the ostriches are lined up this morning, butts in the air, heads in the ground, as big oil requires of them. Notice that when confronted with the bare facts they abandon their pretend science act and revert to the call of the ignorant throughout history. Name calling.

They are simply irrelevant. Responsible people are tackling the problem as well as helping those already struck by the bow wave of AGW caused extreme weather. We'll get through as Americans always have. By hard work, responsible behavior, innovation, and enlightened politics. They will continue to ***** and moan and drag the country down and claim entitlement to better treatment.

Which comes first, ignorance or irresponsibility? I think that they go hand in hand to nowhere.

Extinction is a demanding teacher for both those who adapt and those who don't. Watch and learn from those who presume entitlement over truth.

You seem to want to ignore and avoid any concrete explanations of the weakness for CO2 forced global warming. And INSTEAD --- have put the agenda WAAAAY ahead of the science. And with your truly weak-ass assertion that every storm and weather condition MUST BE because of CO2 and that 1 degF rise in Annual Mean Surface temperature that you've seen in your lifetime..

How sad is that? That a guy who says he's an engineer by trade doesn't question HOW a 1 degF rise CAUSED Tropical Storm Sandy and ALL of the damage in it's wake.

And then you begin by imagining all of us skeptics are ignorant and dupes of big oil..

We're making much more sense than you are right now when you dodge the definition of the problem...

 

[PMZ]

Conservatives love to do nothing. They really believe that doing nothing is the least risky approach. The least costly approach.

When Americans gave conservatism a chance to perform, President Bush prioritized doing nothing, and we watched as the unpaid bills piled up.

Now that we've wasted a decade and all of that capital on holy wars, Wall Street shell games, and get richer quick wealth redistribution tax cuts, their advice on the biggest project in human history is, let the kids worry about it. Kick that can.

Why? Because the only way to know for sure that we should have done something is to wait until it's too late to do anything. This passes for thinking among those who get their opinions from their radios and TVs.

Fortunately, we're a democracy. Fortunately, they're a minority, getting more so. Fortunately, we care about the future and they don't. Fortunately, we have a future and they don't.

 

[flacaltenn]

Conservatives love to do nothing. They really believe that doing nothing is the least risky approach. The least costly approach.

When Americans gave conservatism a chance to perform, President Bush prioritized doing nothing, and we watched as the unpaid bills piled up.

Now that we've wasted a decade and all of that capital on holy wars, Wall Street shell games, and get richer quick wealth redistribution tax cuts, their advice on the biggest project in human history is, let the kids worry about it. Kick that can.

Why? Because the only way to know for sure that we should have done something is to wait until it's too late to do anything. This passes for thinking among those who get their opinions from their radios and TVs.

Fortunately, we're a democracy. Fortunately, they're a minority, getting more so. Fortunately, we care about the future and they don't. Fortunately, we have a future and they don't.

Hey -- if you've got nothing to add to Global Warming -- Take all that political opinion and misguided prognostication to the Politics forum.. Not even interested in doing those lefty wet dreams here..

 

[PMZ]

Conservatives love to do nothing. They really believe that doing nothing is the least risky approach. The least costly approach.

When Americans gave conservatism a chance to perform, President Bush prioritized doing nothing, and we watched as the unpaid bills piled up.

Now that we've wasted a decade and all of that capital on holy wars, Wall Street shell games, and get richer quick wealth redistribution tax cuts, their advice on the biggest project in human history is, let the kids worry about it. Kick that can.

Why? Because the only way to know for sure that we should have done something is to wait until it's too late to do anything. This passes for thinking among those who get their opinions from their radios and TVs.

Fortunately, we're a democracy. Fortunately, they're a minority, getting more so. Fortunately, we care about the future and they don't. Fortunately, we have a future and they don't.

Hey -- if you've got nothing to add to Global Warming -- Take all that political opinion and misguided prognostication to the Politics forum.. Not even interested in doing those lefty wet dreams here..

The reason that you got moved to the irrelevant column is that science is way ahead of you. While you were waiting for never to arrive certainty, people who take responsibility to act, have. Mental masturbation left you on the sidelines. The extinction of conservatism has begun, it will take time, so while you are just waiting your turn you can think about why the world passed you by. We've already used up the time for extreme caution. We're on the fixing clock already while you are still in meditating mode.

Perhaps you can start a thread on things that are going too fast for you.

 

[flacaltenn]

Conservatives love to do nothing. They really believe that doing nothing is the least risky approach. The least costly approach.

When Americans gave conservatism a chance to perform, President Bush prioritized doing nothing, and we watched as the unpaid bills piled up.

Now that we've wasted a decade and all of that capital on holy wars, Wall Street shell games, and get richer quick wealth redistribution tax cuts, their advice on the biggest project in human history is, let the kids worry about it. Kick that can.

Why? Because the only way to know for sure that we should have done something is to wait until it's too late to do anything. This passes for thinking among those who get their opinions from their radios and TVs.

Fortunately, we're a democracy. Fortunately, they're a minority, getting more so. Fortunately, we care about the future and they don't. Fortunately, we have a future and they don't.

Hey -- if you've got nothing to add to Global Warming -- Take all that political opinion and misguided prognostication to the Politics forum.. Not even interested in doing those lefty wet dreams here..

The reason that you got moved to the irrelevant column is that science is way ahead of you. While you were waiting for never to arrive certainty, people who take responsibility to act, have. Mental masturbation left you on the sidelines. The extinction of conservatism has begun, it will take time, so while you are just waiting your turn you can think about why the world passed you by. We've already used up the time for extreme caution. We're on the fixing clock already while you are still in meditating mode.

Perhaps you can start a thread on things that are going too fast for you.

Wooo -- you just went off into the weeds.. And your channel just got changed.. I can get that crap from "The Nation" or the "Salon" anytime I never want it.. More likely, "Socialist Worker" or "Progressives with Disabilities"

There's no value here.

 

[gslack]

I think CO2 aids the planet to more efficiently shed heat to the upper atmosphere and into space. There is as much evidence for it as there is for AGW theory, AND the evidence fits my assertion more readily, because it doesn't require the 2nd law witchcraft you warmers seem to support.

GH gases become excited from interaction with Long wave IR, that excited state causes those gases to follow convection and rise, and at the same time the cooler gases fall where they are heated and rise creating a cycle. No discrepancy with the 2nd law because the energy is going from hot to cold, and natural convection causes the hotter air to rise above the colder air which in turn sinks.

Makes sense, fits the evidence, and is fundamentally sound with the laws of physics.

 

[numan]

Conservatives love to do nothing. They really believe that doing nothing is the least risky approach. The least costly approach.

When Americans gave conservatism a chance to perform, President Bush prioritized doing nothing, and we watched as the unpaid bills piled up.

Now that we've wasted a decade and all of that capital on holy wars, Wall Street shell games, and get richer quick wealth redistribution tax cuts, their advice on the biggest project in human history is, let the kids worry about it. Kick that can.

Why? Because the only way to know for sure that we should have done something is to wait until it's too late to do anything. This passes for thinking among those who get their opinions from their radios and TVs.

Fortunately, we're a democracy. Fortunately, they're a minority, getting more so. Fortunately, we care about the future and they don't. Fortunately, we have a future and they don't.

Hey -- if you've got nothing to add to Global Warming -- Take all that political opinion and misguided prognostication to the Politics forum.. Not even interested in doing those lefty wet dreams here..

But PMZ's comments ARE connected to the Global Heating question -- unfortunately, just not explicitly enought to penetrate your aversion conditioning.

I think the main reason you climate Denialists refuse to look at the evidence for anthropogenic heating is that you understand that massive new government and social programs would be necessary to deal with it. Naturally, all this woud be anathema to the enemies of Big Government and economic oversight.

I am definitely no friend of Big Government, nor Big Business either, but unlike you Denialists I know which century I am living in. What cannot be avoided must be endured.

The 21st century is a race between social and environmental collapse and Massive, Global Concerted Action, adequate to deal with the potential disasters which lie just ahead.

The totalitarian heel of catastrophe management is about to descend and crush your delusions and desires into the dirt. Don't you just hate it when the dictatorship of Big Government forces you to survive?
.

 

[flacaltenn]

I think CO2 aids the planet to more efficiently shed heat to the upper atmosphere and into space. There is as much evidence for it as there is for AGW theory, AND the evidence fits my assertion more readily, because it doesn't require the 2nd law witchcraft you warmers seem to support.

GH gases become excited from interaction with Long wave IR, that excited state causes those gases to follow convection and rise, and at the same time the cooler gases fall where they are heated and rise creating a cycle. No discrepancy with the 2nd law because the energy is going from hot to cold, and natural convection causes the hotter air to rise above the colder air which in turn sinks.

Makes sense, fits the evidence, and is fundamentally sound with the laws of physics.

Perfect.. Love the democracy of science as opposed to the dogma of politics. You propose what appears to be a highly germane observation and what should happen is that the WARMERS should be debating you as to WHY that isn't the case. Instead, there's a deflection of dialogue towards political epithets and OUR integrity and sincerity is mocked by PMZ and the Numan.

Makes perfect sense. The heat absorption of the GHgases contributes to a lowering of the thermal resistance at high Tropo altitudes and it would violate thermo principles if it DIDN'T contribute to heat conduction towards the cooler body.. Wouldn't it?

However, let me play the other side. The Trenberth diagram has the VAST MAJORITY of surface cooling due to Radiation and NOT strictly thermal conduction and convection. So I wager that a principled warmer would point to that and say that ANY conduction/convection is considerably LESS of an effect than down radiation from the CO2.

At which point -- you should counter and ask to see any SIMILIAR system where thermal conduction is less dominant when the thermal resistance of that layer is reduced.

Afterall -- we're looking for tiny miniscule imbalances in a realm of HUGE NUMBERS and the fact that Trenberth found an imbalance of exactly 0.9W/m2 out of all of that estimation and guessing is truely laughable...

 

[gslack]

I think CO2 aids the planet to more efficiently shed heat to the upper atmosphere and into space. There is as much evidence for it as there is for AGW theory, AND the evidence fits my assertion more readily, because it doesn't require the 2nd law witchcraft you warmers seem to support.

GH gases become excited from interaction with Long wave IR, that excited state causes those gases to follow convection and rise, and at the same time the cooler gases fall where they are heated and rise creating a cycle. No discrepancy with the 2nd law because the energy is going from hot to cold, and natural convection causes the hotter air to rise above the colder air which in turn sinks.

Makes sense, fits the evidence, and is fundamentally sound with the laws of physics.

Perfect.. Love the democracy of science as opposed to the dogma of politics. You propose what appears to be a highly germane observation and what should happen is that the WARMERS should be debating you as to WHY that isn't the case. Instead, there's a deflection of dialogue towards political epithets and OUR integrity and sincerity is mocked by PMZ and the Numan.

Makes perfect sense. The heat absorption of the GHgases contributes to a lowering of the thermal resistance at high Tropo altitudes and it would violate thermo principles if it DIDN'T contribute to heat conduction towards the cooler body.. Wouldn't it?

However, let me play the other side. The Trenberth diagram has the VAST MAJORITY of surface cooling due to Radiation and NOT strictly thermal conduction and convection. So I wager that a principled warmer would point to that and say that ANY conduction/convection is considerably LESS of an effect than down radiation from the CO2.

At which point -- you should counter and ask to see any SIMILIAR system where thermal conduction is less dominant when the thermal resistance of that layer is reduced.

Afterall -- we're looking for tiny miniscule imbalances in a realm of HUGE NUMBERS and the fact that Trenberth found an imbalance of exactly 0.9W/m2 out of all of that estimation and guessing is truely laughable...

Agreed. In fact the very nature of gases in a relatively unhindered state (like our atmosphere) are terrible insulators due to convection. We know for a fact the if we remove or limit convection as a factor those same gases are a very good insulator.

That being the case, and knowing that convection is a major driving force in our weather,it would stand to reason that it would become more of a driving force if the very gases involved had a higher content of more "excitable" GH gases.

IMHO, GH gases will contribute to a more varied weather pattern in the short term, and long term a quicker transfer from warming to cooling and back again when their climactic points are reached respectively.

We currently see much more weather variance right now. And given the warmers already claim more extreme weather changes, it would fit the bill perfectly.

But then for many of them, it's not about logic or reason, it's about their political standing and "faith".

 

[PMZ]

Some people study sciences because they are relentlessly and insatiably curious. Some as the basis for solving mankind's problems and advancing our lives.

Clearly there are those that love the fact that every science revelation leads to another question and the goal of action can always be delayed by one more search for one more elusive bit of trivia.

Fun perhaps to those who are pure scientists, or pure politicians, but frustrating to those who are trained to solve problems, engineers.

We are really driven by economics, the efficient use of resources. While scientists focus on counting the number of angels that can be fit on the head of a pin, we are at work.

We engineered the uses of fossil fuels to mankind's betterment, and we'll engineer the next chapter too.

When there were only a relatively few people on the planet, and our energy needs were modest the attention of doers was on supply. Now that we are about as numerous as the planet can support, and energy is our most pervasive demand, we know that what and how we waste, is, very often, the limiting factor to our use.

So, as the sources of our current energy demand slide down the availability curve, and the disposal of their waste becomes more costly to civilization, the economics of the future require forward thinkers, not those with fond memories of coal fired trains.

As costly as action may be, it is less costly than doing nothing. Which is magnificently unaffordable.

Time for gentle but relentless pressure on the scientists of the world to move their attention to solutions. Some will never look up from their particle colliders and will benefit the 10th generation beyond us. But, first we have to provide for the next generation and the next.

That requires action. Engineers and scientists and business people and politicians and consumers and builders of things all together. Fortunately, the people who made America great.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah --- Don't ya hate it when Sheldon and Leonard make fun of poor Wolowitz?? Even with his space credentials and a prestigious Engineering degree from MIT??