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

[PMZ]

However the wave/particle duality is merely useful. It works, and much progress has been with no more rigorous knowledge. Someday, probably, we'll make the leap in knowledge that reveals to us something more rigorous. How exciting. In the meantime, we make maximum progress based on what is a satisfactory model of what's yet to be fully understood.

In what bizarro world is a ate of failing models satisfactory

Only in the corporate world of the climate fraud. Just take a look at who's pushing it. Big Oil is behind it as are the insurance companies. They get to make loads of cash for nothing. No risk, no cost to the Big Oil companies they get to pass whatever government costs there are on to us and they get to shave a little bit off of the top. It's the perfect scam.

How does big oil and big insurance make money from less demand for fossil fuels?

 

[PMZ]

Quantum physics contradicting itself? *It's a wave... no, it's a particle... Oh, wait, it's a wavicle... *No, it is just a particle....

Who could possibly expect quantum physics to contradict itself? *

OMG!!!! *You've uncovered something there, for sure.

However the wave/particle duality is merely useful. It works, and much progress has been with no more rigorous knowledge. Someday, probably, we'll make the leap in knowledge that reveals to us something more rigorous. How exciting. In the meantime, we make maximum progress based on what is a satisfactory model of what's yet to be fully understood.

In what bizarro world is a ate of failing models satisfactory

Every science experiment is a model of the natural world testing a hypothesis about it. Some support the hypothesis, some deny it. Scientists learn from every one. Political pundits learn from none of them.

That's why smart people learn about the natural world from scientists and morons learn about the natural world from political pundits.

 

[PMZ]

As an elective science class, I took one long ago that explored all the different fields of science and gave us rudimentary exposure to each including quantum physics. Quantum physics is one of those fairly new fields of science--it has been around for only a century or so--that is just beginning to touch on all the possibiities that exist.

The most the average public ever needs to know about it is that everything in the universe is not an absolute and we cannot depend on what works at global or universal levels to be the same in very limited or microscopic levels and vice versa. As Einstein put it: "The more success the quantum theory has, the sillier it looks."

But isn't that the case in so many things? A minute bit of arsenic can be medicine while in larger doses it is poison. A 'micro' economic system in one homogenous place is disastrous when applied on a much larger scale. What works for New York City is ridiculous when applied to a Mayberry U.S.A. et al. A living wage one place is totally inadequate as a living wage another place, etc. etc. etc.

But one thing is for sure. It is reasonable to believe that climate models using limited data that do not, perhaps cannot, include all the variables that affect the climate of planet Earth or any other planet are piss poor tools to use in establishling global policy and planning global economy.

"It is reasonable to believe that climate models using limited data that do not, perhaps cannot, include all the variables that affect the climate of planet Earth or any other planet are piss poor tools to use in establishling global policy and planning global economy"

Said in other words, "ignorance is bliss".

Perhaps. Sometimes.

Fortunately for us, the doers of the world take a different stand akin to, don't wait for perfection or absolute understanding. The money/improvement potential business is risky. Don't be the first or last to act on probability.

As I pointed out earlier, there are some folks who have waited 2400 years to be certain our earth is spheroidal. It's a good thing that nobody counts on them for anything.

Similarly, nobody counts on science deniers in other fields for anything. We expect them to be carried across the finish line on the backs of doers. As has always happened.

Perfectly safe is sorry.

No, it's a simple fact. Using your methods, the State of California has had thousands of fresh water wells polluted because you decided to fire before you aimed. Do you really want to do the same thing again?

Are you so determined to do something, anything, that the potentially destructive impacts of your policies don't matter to you? Do you simply not care that your policies have already been proven to be harmful to the environment and you still wish to continue with your provably faulty methods?

Is that it? Destroy the current petrol based economies of the world and after the bodies have been buried try and pick up the pieces?

Tell us about the connection between GHGs and fresh water wells in California?

 

[westwall]

In what bizarro world is a ate of failing models satisfactory

Only in the corporate world of the climate fraud. Just take a look at who's pushing it. Big Oil is behind it as are the insurance companies. They get to make loads of cash for nothing. No risk, no cost to the Big Oil companies they get to pass whatever government costs there are on to us and they get to shave a little bit off of the top. It's the perfect scam.

How does big oil and big insurance make money from less demand for fossil fuels?

Insurance companies get to make money for nothing based on the climate fraud. Look at all those disasters that have been attributed to a non entity. They get to charge you money for your premiums and they have zero risk. It's an insurance mans wet dream.

Big Oil is heavily invested in the green tech. I thought you were up on these things? Big Oil has been pumping money into the various wind and solar companies and getting a nice tax break from the various governments...paid for by the little guy rate payers mind you. The demand for oil will never abate. If the EV technology gets to the point where it can supplant fossil fuels then the oil will be used for the manufacture of plastics and other more useful things like that.

It is a shame that a commodity like oil is used to power our vehicles. It truly is. It has so many more useful uses. Unfortunately it is STILL the most efficient method of powering our economy.

 

[westwall]

"It is reasonable to believe that climate models using limited data that do not, perhaps cannot, include all the variables that affect the climate of planet Earth or any other planet are piss poor tools to use in establishling global policy and planning global economy"

Said in other words, "ignorance is bliss".

Perhaps. Sometimes.

Fortunately for us, the doers of the world take a different stand akin to, don't wait for perfection or absolute understanding. The money/improvement potential business is risky. Don't be the first or last to act on probability.

As I pointed out earlier, there are some folks who have waited 2400 years to be certain our earth is spheroidal. It's a good thing that nobody counts on them for anything.

Similarly, nobody counts on science deniers in other fields for anything. We expect them to be carried across the finish line on the backs of doers. As has always happened.

Perfectly safe is sorry.

No, it's a simple fact. Using your methods, the State of California has had thousands of fresh water wells polluted because you decided to fire before you aimed. Do you really want to do the same thing again?

Are you so determined to do something, anything, that the potentially destructive impacts of your policies don't matter to you? Do you simply not care that your policies have already been proven to be harmful to the environment and you still wish to continue with your provably faulty methods?

Is that it? Destroy the current petrol based economies of the world and after the bodies have been buried try and pick up the pieces?

Tell us about the connection between GHGs and fresh water wells in California?

There is none. Look up what MTBE did to the water wells in California. MTBE that was mandated to be used by you environmentalists. You're not very good at this are you...

 

[westwall]

However the wave/particle duality is merely useful. It works, and much progress has been with no more rigorous knowledge. Someday, probably, we'll make the leap in knowledge that reveals to us something more rigorous. How exciting. In the meantime, we make maximum progress based on what is a satisfactory model of what's yet to be fully understood.

In what bizarro world is a ate of failing models satisfactory

Every science experiment is a model of the natural world testing a hypothesis about it. Some support the hypothesis, some deny it. Scientists learn from every one. Political pundits learn from none of them.

That's why smart people learn about the natural world from scientists and morons learn about the natural world from political pundits.

Untrue. A good model yes, the problem is there is not one good climate computer model. Not one. They are all simplistic trying to model exceptionally complex systems. They were doomed to fail and have done nothing but fail since they were created.

 

[PMZ]

To Westwall, a good climate model would be one that demonstrates that the guess that was made a couple of decades ago by political entertainers, based on zero knowledge, had turned out to be correct.

To date, no climate theories or models or data support what he wants to be true, in order for him to not look ignorant, so they have failed him.

I agree that they have failed him.

Who they haven't failed is, pretty much, the rest of the world. The theories and models and data show that there is a big price to be paid for our unrestrained use of fossil fuels. Deaths and damage from extreme weather made more likely by energy imbalance in the atmosphere that warms the earth.

So, with that knowledge, we can make good decisions to minimize the real cost of our future energy.

Good for us. Bad for him. Intolerable to those who feel entitled.

I think that the proper name for such unproductive noise is whining.

So, this conflict between the doers and whiners, between those who work at progress and those who feel entitled, will go on.

 

[PMZ]

No, it's a simple fact. Using your methods, the State of California has had thousands of fresh water wells polluted because you decided to fire before you aimed. Do you really want to do the same thing again?

Are you so determined to do something, anything, that the potentially destructive impacts of your policies don't matter to you? Do you simply not care that your policies have already been proven to be harmful to the environment and you still wish to continue with your provably faulty methods?

Is that it? Destroy the current petrol based economies of the world and after the bodies have been buried try and pick up the pieces?

Tell us about the connection between GHGs and fresh water wells in California?

There is none. Look up what MTBE did to the water wells in California. MTBE that was mandated to be used by you environmentalists. You're not very good at this are you...

What contaminated the groundwater was our addiction to fossil fuel fired traveling McMansions.

One of the choices required by that ridiculousness was between lead, and MTBE and ethanol.

The solution is well designed hybrids for now going to electrics.

 

[PMZ]

Only in the corporate world of the climate fraud. Just take a look at who's pushing it. Big Oil is behind it as are the insurance companies. They get to make loads of cash for nothing. No risk, no cost to the Big Oil companies they get to pass whatever government costs there are on to us and they get to shave a little bit off of the top. It's the perfect scam.

How does big oil and big insurance make money from less demand for fossil fuels?

Insurance companies get to make money for nothing based on the climate fraud. Look at all those disasters that have been attributed to a non entity. They get to charge you money for your premiums and they have zero risk. It's an insurance mans wet dream.

Big Oil is heavily invested in the green tech. I thought you were up on these things? Big Oil has been pumping money into the various wind and solar companies and getting a nice tax break from the various governments...paid for by the little guy rate payers mind you. The demand for oil will never abate. If the EV technology gets to the point where it can supplant fossil fuels then the oil will be used for the manufacture of plastics and other more useful things like that.

It is a shame that a commodity like oil is used to power our vehicles. It truly is. It has so many more useful uses. Unfortunately it is STILL the most efficient method of powering our economy.

I have had insurance on my stuff since long before AGW was proven.

I have a Prius. It's available because auto engineers ignored people like you and payed attention to climate science. The bottom line? Big oil is losing money on people like me. I hope to soon put our military out of the business of defending our oil supplies. The new CAFE standards will give many more people the chance to save on transportation costs.

All because nobody is paying attention any more to your incessant whining.

 

[itfitzme]

In what bizarro world is a ate of failing models satisfactory

Every science experiment is a model of the natural world testing a hypothesis about it. Some support the hypothesis, some deny it. Scientists learn from every one. Political pundits learn from none of them.

That's why smart people learn about the natural world from scientists and morons learn about the natural world from political pundits.

Untrue. A good model yes, the problem is there is not one good climate computer model. Not one. They are all simplistic trying to model exceptionally complex systems. They were doomed to fail and have done nothing but fail since they were created.

Vague bs.

 

[itfitzme]

No, it's a simple fact. Using your methods, the State of California has had thousands of fresh water wells polluted because you decided to fire before you aimed. Do you really want to do the same thing again?

Are you so determined to do something, anything, that the potentially destructive impacts of your policies don't matter to you? Do you simply not care that your policies have already been proven to be harmful to the environment and you still wish to continue with your provably faulty methods?

Is that it? Destroy the current petrol based economies of the world and after the bodies have been buried try and pick up the pieces?

Tell us about the connection between GHGs and fresh water wells in California?

There is none. Look up what MTBE did to the water wells in California. MTBE that was mandated to be used by you environmentalists. You're not very good at this are you...

So what is the unacceptable level of MTBEs in ground water and how did it get there?

 

[SSDD]

"unlike the greenhouse hypothesis, demonstrable in a laboratory setting"

You are claiming that the effects of greenhouse gases are not demonstrable in the lab????

Yes I am. When I ask for hard proof, experimental evidence would fall within that purview. Here is your big chance to go out and get something that you believe constitutes "evidence" and further prove that you don't have a grasp of the science.

Take a container transparent To IR.
Fill it with greenhouse gas.
Shine an IR laser through it.
Measure the light reflected and transmitted. What's left will be the light absorbed.
Ask a physicist what happens when materials absorb energy.

If I ask a physicist what happens when materials absorb energy, a good physicist before answering will first ask how much of the energy that was absorbed gets emitted. If the answer is all of it, then the physicist will tell me that nothing happens. You are a know nothing idiot. Look at the emission spectra of CO2. It is the opposite of the absorption spectra which indicates that it doesn't hold on to any of what it absorbs.

Professor Woods disproved that quaint bit of 19th century pseudoscience shortly after it was introduced. Feel free to try again. There is a certain entertainment value in your public exhibition of ignorance.

 

[itfitzme]

Yes I am. When I ask for hard proof, experimental evidence would fall within that purview. Here is your big chance to go out and get something that you believe constitutes "evidence" and further prove that you don't have a grasp of the science.

Take a container transparent To IR.
Fill it with greenhouse gas.
Shine an IR laser through it.
Measure the light reflected and transmitted. What's left will be the light absorbed.
Ask a physicist what happens when materials absorb energy.

If I ask a physicist what happens when materials absorb energy, a good physicist before answering will first ask how much of the energy that was absorbed gets emitted. If the answer is all of it, then the physicist will tell me that nothing happens. You are a know nothing idiot. Look at the emission spectra of CO2. It is the opposite of the absorption spectra which indicates that it doesn't hold on to any of what it absorbs.

Professor Woods disproved that quaint bit of 19th century pseudoscience shortly after it was introduced. Feel free to try again. There is a certain entertainment value in your public exhibition of ignorance.

You are still having difficulty with that absorbed/re-emitted and reflected/transmitted thing. This is why you can't be a Wikipedia scientist.

 

[SSDD]

Every science experiment is a model of the natural world testing a hypothesis about it. Some support the hypothesis, some deny it. Scientists learn from every one. Political pundits learn from none of them.

That's why smart people learn about the natural world from scientists and morons learn about the natural world from political pundits.

The fact remains that climate models have failed miserably. That is due to the fact that they are not based on real world physics. They are based in wishful thinking, assumptions, fabrications and outright fraud.

 

[SSDD]

[

Vague bs.

Only to a know nothing idiot. To those who actually take the time to learn something, a factual statement. How much more peer reviewed material do you need stating explicitly that climate models are failures?

 

[SSDD]

You are still having difficulty with that absorbed/re-emitted and reflected/transmitted thing. This is why you can't be a Wikipedia scientist.

Sorry, but it is you who is having problems. CO2 immediately emits the IR it absorbs. It does not have the capacity to hold on to even the smallest amount of IR. Feel free to keep trying. Like I said, very intertaining.

By the way, your idiot experiment is done in a closed system. You will see a temperature rise in your container, but it is due to a phenomenon known as the heat of compression...look it up.

If you put an outlet valve on top of your container so that the pressure within doesn't increase as you add IR, you will not see a temperature rise.

 

[westwall]

To Westwall, a good climate model would be one that demonstrates that the guess that was made a couple of decades ago by political entertainers, based on zero knowledge, had turned out to be correct.

To date, no climate theories or models or data support what he wants to be true, in order for him to not look ignorant, so they have failed him.

I agree that they have failed him.

Who they haven't failed is, pretty much, the rest of the world. The theories and models and data show that there is a big price to be paid for our unrestrained use of fossil fuels. Deaths and damage from extreme weather made more likely by energy imbalance in the atmosphere that warms the earth.

So, with that knowledge, we can make good decisions to minimize the real cost of our future energy.

Good for us. Bad for him. Intolerable to those who feel entitled.

I think that the proper name for such unproductive noise is whining.

So, this conflict between the doers and whiners, between those who work at progress and those who feel entitled, will go on.

Unfortunately for you not one of your computer models has ever predicted anything.

 

[PMZ]

Yes I am. When I ask for hard proof, experimental evidence would fall within that purview. Here is your big chance to go out and get something that you believe constitutes "evidence" and further prove that you don't have a grasp of the science.

Take a container transparent To IR.
Fill it with greenhouse gas.
Shine an IR laser through it.
Measure the light reflected and transmitted. What's left will be the light absorbed.
Ask a physicist what happens when materials absorb energy.

If I ask a physicist what happens when materials absorb energy, a good physicist before answering will first ask how much of the energy that was absorbed gets emitted. If the answer is all of it, then the physicist will tell me that nothing happens. You are a know nothing idiot. Look at the emission spectra of CO2. It is the opposite of the absorption spectra which indicates that it doesn't hold on to any of what it absorbs.

Professor Woods disproved that quaint bit of 19th century pseudoscience shortly after it was introduced. Feel free to try again. There is a certain entertainment value in your public exhibition of ignorance.

The absorption of energy puts the molecule at a higher energy state. What happens after that depends on the environment the molecule finds itself in. In a typical atmospheric environment, the energy does get re-emitted in all directions, half of it down. That's why the earth has to go to an elevated temperature to rebalance incoming solar energy. No matter how hard you try to sell the opposite, energy is conserved.

I don't know Professor Woods, but he doesn't sound any smarter than you do.

 

[westwall]

Tell us about the connection between GHGs and fresh water wells in California?

There is none. Look up what MTBE did to the water wells in California. MTBE that was mandated to be used by you environmentalists. You're not very good at this are you...

What contaminated the groundwater was our addiction to fossil fuel fired traveling McMansions.

One of the choices required by that ridiculousness was between lead, and MTBE and ethanol.

The solution is well designed hybrids for now going to electrics.

Provably wrong. Lead was removed years before MTBE was ever added to the gasoline. Ethanol is a ******* joke. MORE CO2 is created in its manufacture than is the result of oil cracking and fuel and other POL consumption. You are simply, catastrophically wrong.

A TDI gets better fuel mileage than a hybrid. By a lot. It is also far less damaging to the environment to manufacture. Provably so.

You're batting .000. Time to get a pinch hitter 'cause you suck.

 

[PMZ]

To Westwall, a good climate model would be one that demonstrates that the guess that was made a couple of decades ago by political entertainers, based on zero knowledge, had turned out to be correct.

To date, no climate theories or models or data support what he wants to be true, in order for him to not look ignorant, so they have failed him.

I agree that they have failed him.

Who they haven't failed is, pretty much, the rest of the world. The theories and models and data show that there is a big price to be paid for our unrestrained use of fossil fuels. Deaths and damage from extreme weather made more likely by energy imbalance in the atmosphere that warms the earth.

So, with that knowledge, we can make good decisions to minimize the real cost of our future energy.

Good for us. Bad for him. Intolerable to those who feel entitled.

I think that the proper name for such unproductive noise is whining.

So, this conflict between the doers and whiners, between those who work at progress and those who feel entitled, will go on.

Unfortunately for you not one of your computer models has ever predicted anything.

They predicted what's been measured. They didn't predict what you wish was true so that you might be mistaken for informed. Nothing has predicted, measured, or theorized that except for you and your homies.