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

[gslack]

So, according to gslack, the soil gobbles up CO2, magically breaks it up into oxygen and soil carbon, like coal, pencil lead, diamonds, fullerenes, and nano-tubes. *Plants then drink up the carbon through their roots. *That, the carbon cycle.

He's getting warmer.

I'l give you a hint, Slacknuts.

What is photosynthesis?

Stop already idiot... You are trying to claim CO2 created life. When we and all the rest of the world now for a fact CARBON is the basis of life on this planet, not CO2...

Don't like it? Like your theory better? Fine get your theory published and take your shot. The fact that two of (or one as two) and ONLY TWO of you make the claim, and the entire scientific world states it's a carbon cycle and and not a CO2 cycle, should give you a clue to shut up and stop trying to pretend you're a scientist when you are preaching anti-science..

You and your pal (you let's be real) are busted again being stupid and claiming brilliance, when you clearly are nothing of the kind..

You or your pal got caught talking out your ass again, making a big, bold, and utterly nonsensical and ridiculous claim and I called you on it. Now your defense is to deny the entire scientific world?

ROFL, pathetic.. You're done, you're a nobody playing big on a web forum just like the last several times you tried to play big on here.

 

[SSDD]

climate models are a useful tool to test our improving knowledge of the factors that run climate but are not meant to be able to predict the future with any certainty. hell, most of them cannot replicate the past without arbitrary fine tuning of inputs that seriously impact how the models run. (check out J Curry's latest post). it is not that climate models are 'wrong', it is that the media and the public demanded that they be used for a purpose which they are not well suited.

If by "useful tool" you mean a means of determining exactly how much we don't know about the mechanisms that control the climate, then I agree with you 100%. Because climate change is about politics and not science, climate models can provide the forecasts that political hacks need in order to fuel their doom and gloom senarios. They have put models in a position where they are, indeed, either right or wrong and as we can all see, they are wrong.

CO2, and the theory of CO2 warming, is another example of focusing on one area that is a legitimately worthy case for interest, and perhaps for concern, but to the exclusion of the heavy hitters in climate like water in its many forms. most of the energy comes into the earth at tropical locations and is pumped out by hydrological means, either convection and clouds, or ocean currents. CO2 is a pittance compared to these functions which have kept the tropical oceans at a very stable temp no matter what conditions prevailed. CO2 may theoretically be able to impede the loss of some IR radiation but that does not mean that that same IR can directly heat the surface. mostly all it does is add energy to the heat pump mechanisms that are controlled and governed by water/evaporation/clouds. the clouds get rid of energy whether it is a lot, or a little. open water seldom exceeds 29C, and never exceeds 31C. available energy simply turns on the heat pump. until we have a much better understanding of hydrological mechanisms, focusing on CO2 is just a joke.

It is good that you don't think the magic is as powerful as warmist goofs such as found on this boar, but it is unfortunate that you believe in the magic at all. When the physics used in the present climate models are put to the test on other planets, the output isn't even close which is a pretty good indication that the physics in use in the climate models aren't even close.

 

[SSDD]

So, according to gslack, the soil gobbles up CO2, magically breaks it up into oxygen and soil carbon, like coal, pencil lead, diamonds, fullerenes, and nano-tubes. *Plants then drink up the carbon through their roots. *That, the carbon cycle.

He's getting warmer.

I'l give you a hint, Slacknuts.

What is photosynthesis?

Stop already idiot... You are trying to claim CO2 created life. When we and all the rest of the world now for a fact CARBON is the basis of life on this planet, not CO2...

Don't like it? Like your theory better? Fine get your theory published and take your shot. The fact that two of (or one as two) and ONLY TWO of you make the claim, and the entire scientific world states it's a carbon cycle and and not a CO2 cycle, should give you a clue to shut up and stop trying to pretend you're a scientist when you are preaching anti-science..

You and your pal (you let's be real) are busted again being stupid and claiming brilliance, when you clearly are nothing of the kind..

You or your pal got caught talking out your ass again, making a big, bold, and utterly nonsensical and ridiculous claim and I called you on it. Now your defense is to deny the entire scientific world?

ROFL, pathetic.. You're done, you're a nobody playing big on a web forum just like the last several times you tried to play big on here.

He doesn't understand chemistry well enough to grasp that CO2 came after carbon. It is interesting to watch the mental gymnasitcs and gyrations he will go through in an attempt to defelect attention from the fact that he made a very basic error...one that someone with a clue wouldn't.

 

[IanC]

climate models are a useful tool to test our improving knowledge of the factors that run climate but are not meant to be able to predict the future with any certainty. hell, most of them cannot replicate the past without arbitrary fine tuning of inputs that seriously impact how the models run. (check out J Curry's latest post). it is not that climate models are 'wrong', it is that the media and the public demanded that they be used for a purpose which they are not well suited.

If by "useful tool" you mean a means of determining exactly how much we don't know about the mechanisms that control the climate, then I agree with you 100%. Because climate change is about politics and not science, climate models can provide the forecasts that political hacks need in order to fuel their doom and gloom senarios. They have put models in a position where they are, indeed, either right or wrong and as we can all see, they are wrong.

CO2, and the theory of CO2 warming, is another example of focusing on one area that is a legitimately worthy case for interest, and perhaps for concern, but to the exclusion of the heavy hitters in climate like water in its many forms. most of the energy comes into the earth at tropical locations and is pumped out by hydrological means, either convection and clouds, or ocean currents. CO2 is a pittance compared to these functions which have kept the tropical oceans at a very stable temp no matter what conditions prevailed. CO2 may theoretically be able to impede the loss of some IR radiation but that does not mean that that same IR can directly heat the surface. mostly all it does is add energy to the heat pump mechanisms that are controlled and governed by water/evaporation/clouds. the clouds get rid of energy whether it is a lot, or a little. open water seldom exceeds 29C, and never exceeds 31C. available energy simply turns on the heat pump. until we have a much better understanding of hydrological mechanisms, focusing on CO2 is just a joke.

It is good that you don't think the magic is as powerful as warmist goofs such as found on this boar, but it is unfortunate that you believe in the magic at all. When the physics used in the present climate models are put to the test on other planets, the output isn't even close which is a pretty good indication that the physics in use in the climate models aren't even close.

Im still waiting for you to start that thread on the Slayer's theories. it is just as ridiculous to deny the 'greenhouse effect' as it is to claim that CO2 runs the climate.

 

[gslack]

climate models are a useful tool to test our improving knowledge of the factors that run climate but are not meant to be able to predict the future with any certainty. hell, most of them cannot replicate the past without arbitrary fine tuning of inputs that seriously impact how the models run. (check out J Curry's latest post). it is not that climate models are 'wrong', it is that the media and the public demanded that they be used for a purpose which they are not well suited.

If by "useful tool" you mean a means of determining exactly how much we don't know about the mechanisms that control the climate, then I agree with you 100%. Because climate change is about politics and not science, climate models can provide the forecasts that political hacks need in order to fuel their doom and gloom senarios. They have put models in a position where they are, indeed, either right or wrong and as we can all see, they are wrong.

CO2, and the theory of CO2 warming, is another example of focusing on one area that is a legitimately worthy case for interest, and perhaps for concern, but to the exclusion of the heavy hitters in climate like water in its many forms. most of the energy comes into the earth at tropical locations and is pumped out by hydrological means, either convection and clouds, or ocean currents. CO2 is a pittance compared to these functions which have kept the tropical oceans at a very stable temp no matter what conditions prevailed. CO2 may theoretically be able to impede the loss of some IR radiation but that does not mean that that same IR can directly heat the surface. mostly all it does is add energy to the heat pump mechanisms that are controlled and governed by water/evaporation/clouds. the clouds get rid of energy whether it is a lot, or a little. open water seldom exceeds 29C, and never exceeds 31C. available energy simply turns on the heat pump. until we have a much better understanding of hydrological mechanisms, focusing on CO2 is just a joke.

It is good that you don't think the magic is as powerful as warmist goofs such as found on this boar, but it is unfortunate that you believe in the magic at all. When the physics used in the present climate models are put to the test on other planets, the output isn't even close which is a pretty good indication that the physics in use in the climate models aren't even close.

Im still waiting for you to start that thread on the Slayer's theories. it is just as ridiculous to deny the 'greenhouse effect' as it is to claim that CO2 runs the climate.

LOL, what's stupid is worshiping a half-ass "scientist" like you do. Spencer the scientist you worship, wastes so much effort trying to defend something that is as scientifically unsound as believing in the tooth fairy, I don't see how he is respected at all any more..

He wants to peddle his own books and his website, and his career has been made on GH theory, so he plays the safe route and condemns the extreme claims yet defends the pseudo-science behind it. He's an opportunistic save-ass..

Whenever you are tested on the theory, you run away or play dumb in that childish way we have all come to know too well on here. The "what do you mean" act, or the sarcastic asshole shtick.. You're a coward on it Ian, and that's been shown time and again. You are literally one-step away from being a warmer. Why not just take the plunge and get it over with? You spend more time defending the warmer position anyway..

Why bother? You are a warmer.. You just lack the balls to say so and come out with it. You don't want to risk anything, can't afford to be wrong so you take the middle ground... Where the cowards live...

Man up Ian, quit pussy-footing around and pick a damn side already.

 

[SSDD]

Im still waiting for you to start that thread on the Slayer's theories. it is just as ridiculous to deny the 'greenhouse effect' as it is to claim that CO2 runs the climate.

There is an atmospheric thermal effect which is larger than the so called greenhouse effect which is both predicted, and supported by the laws of physics (no bending or torturing of laws whatsoever) and is, unlike the greenhouse hypothesis, demonstrable in a laboratory setting.

You should stop by Claes Johnson's site and take a look. He is describing some of the very basic problems with quantum physics. Some problems with that line of thinking that are even more basic than I had suspected. Did you know, for instance that quantum physics contradicts itself in so basic a topic as hydrogen orbitals? Quantum physics has simply fabricated an ad hoc solution to the problem as well as other elements on the periodic table.

Seems that quantum physics requires even more faith than I had originally thought.

 

[PMZ]

it really is a shame that concern about the earth and 'climate' has devolved into a political struggle with both sides taking stance of "you're either with me, or against me". unfortunately that type of position makes it easy to dismiss valid points from both sides before they are even examined.

climate models are a useful tool to test our improving knowledge of the factors that run climate but are not meant to be able to predict the future with any certainty. hell, most of them cannot replicate the past without arbitrary fine tuning of inputs that seriously impact how the models run. (check out J Curry's latest post). it is not that climate models are 'wrong', it is that the media and the public demanded that they be used for a purpose which they are not well suited.

CO2, and the theory of CO2 warming, is another example of focusing on one area that is a legitimately worthy case for interest, and perhaps for concern, but to the exclusion of the heavy hitters in climate like water in its many forms. most of the energy comes into the earth at tropical locations and is pumped out by hydrological means, either convection and clouds, or ocean currents. CO2 is a pittance compared to these functions which have kept the tropical oceans at a very stable temp no matter what conditions prevailed. CO2 may theoretically be able to impede the loss of some IR radiation but that does not mean that that same IR can directly heat the surface. mostly all it does is add energy to the heat pump mechanisms that are controlled and governed by water/evaporation/clouds. the clouds get rid of energy whether it is a lot, or a little. open water seldom exceeds 29C, and never exceeds 31C. available energy simply turns on the heat pump. until we have a much better understanding of hydrological mechanisms, focusing on CO2 is just a joke.

"climate models are a useful tool to test our improving knowledge of the factors that run climate but are not meant to be able to predict the future with any certainty."

Their only useful function is predicting the future with adequate certainty so that we can change the costly path that we've put ourselves on.

The science isn't really the point. The future is. The science is merely the way to test the weather effects of various sustainable energy strategies and technologies to see which gives the most bang for the buck.

The science has demonstrated, adequately to the vast majority of doers, that doing nothing is unaffordable. Given that, what sequence and strategy of technological solutions gets us out of the Dodge City that we've inadvertently put ourselves in, and on to a sustainable future.

While the newly created science of climatology will now forever be a key field of study, it's done what is needed for now, and handed over the adequate models to energy engineering.

 

[SSDD]

Their only useful function is predicting the future with adequate certainty so that we can change the costly path that we've put ourselves on.

And in that, they have failed miserably. Hell they can't even accurately hindcast the past, much less be relied on to predict the future.

 

[PMZ]

climate models are a useful tool to test our improving knowledge of the factors that run climate but are not meant to be able to predict the future with any certainty. hell, most of them cannot replicate the past without arbitrary fine tuning of inputs that seriously impact how the models run. (check out J Curry's latest post). it is not that climate models are 'wrong', it is that the media and the public demanded that they be used for a purpose which they are not well suited.

If by "useful tool" you mean a means of determining exactly how much we don't know about the mechanisms that control the climate, then I agree with you 100%. Because climate change is about politics and not science, climate models can provide the forecasts that political hacks need in order to fuel their doom and gloom senarios. They have put models in a position where they are, indeed, either right or wrong and as we can all see, they are wrong.

CO2, and the theory of CO2 warming, is another example of focusing on one area that is a legitimately worthy case for interest, and perhaps for concern, but to the exclusion of the heavy hitters in climate like water in its many forms. most of the energy comes into the earth at tropical locations and is pumped out by hydrological means, either convection and clouds, or ocean currents. CO2 is a pittance compared to these functions which have kept the tropical oceans at a very stable temp no matter what conditions prevailed. CO2 may theoretically be able to impede the loss of some IR radiation but that does not mean that that same IR can directly heat the surface. mostly all it does is add energy to the heat pump mechanisms that are controlled and governed by water/evaporation/clouds. the clouds get rid of energy whether it is a lot, or a little. open water seldom exceeds 29C, and never exceeds 31C. available energy simply turns on the heat pump. until we have a much better understanding of hydrological mechanisms, focusing on CO2 is just a joke.

It is good that you don't think the magic is as powerful as warmist goofs such as found on this boar, but it is unfortunate that you believe in the magic at all. When the physics used in the present climate models are put to the test on other planets, the output isn't even close which is a pretty good indication that the physics in use in the climate models aren't even close.

Im still waiting for you to start that thread on the Slayer's theories. it is just as ridiculous to deny the 'greenhouse effect' as it is to claim that CO2 runs the climate.

"It is just as ridiculous to deny the 'greenhouse effect' as it is to claim that CO2 runs the climate."

Or, in other words, it's as ridiculous to claim that CO2 has no significant effect on the climate as it is "to claim that CO2 runs the climate".

 

[PMZ]

Their only useful function is predicting the future with adequate certainty so that we can change the costly path that we've put ourselves on.

And in that, they have failed miserably. Hell they can't even accurately hindcast the past, much less be relied on to predict the future.

Most of those who do things in order to be part of our future disagree with you. That's why your cult is only part of our past.

 

[PMZ]

Im still waiting for you to start that thread on the Slayer's theories. it is just as ridiculous to deny the 'greenhouse effect' as it is to claim that CO2 runs the climate.

There is an atmospheric thermal effect which is larger than the so called greenhouse effect which is both predicted, and supported by the laws of physics (no bending or torturing of laws whatsoever) and is, unlike the greenhouse hypothesis, demonstrable in a laboratory setting.

You should stop by Claes Johnson's site and take a look. He is describing some of the very basic problems with quantum physics. Some problems with that line of thinking that are even more basic than I had suspected. Did you know, for instance that quantum physics contradicts itself in so basic a topic as hydrogen orbitals? Quantum physics has simply fabricated an ad hoc solution to the problem as well as other elements on the periodic table.

Seems that quantum physics requires even more faith than I had originally thought.

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

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

 

[itfitzme]

Im still waiting for you to start that thread on the Slayer's theories. it is just as ridiculous to deny the 'greenhouse effect' as it is to claim that CO2 runs the climate.

There is an atmospheric thermal effect which is larger than the so called greenhouse effect which is both predicted, and supported by the laws of physics (no bending or torturing of laws whatsoever) and is, unlike the greenhouse hypothesis, *demonstrable in a laboratory setting.

You should stop by Claes Johnson's site and take a look. *He is describing some of the very basic problems with quantum physics. *Some problems with that line of thinking that are even more basic than I had suspected. *Did you know, for instance that quantum physics contradicts itself in so basic a topic as hydrogen orbitals?**Quantum physics has simply fabricated an ad hoc solution to the problem as well as other elements on the periodic table. *

Seems that quantum physics requires even more faith than I had originally thought.

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

Im still waiting for you to start that thread on the Slayer's theories. it is just as ridiculous to deny the 'greenhouse effect' as it is to claim that CO2 runs the climate.

There is an atmospheric thermal effect which is larger than the so called greenhouse effect which is both predicted, and supported by the laws of physics (no bending or torturing of laws whatsoever) and is, unlike the greenhouse hypothesis, demonstrable in a laboratory setting.

You should stop by Claes Johnson's site and take a look. He is describing some of the very basic problems with quantum physics. Some problems with that line of thinking that are even more basic than I had suspected. Did you know, for instance that quantum physics contradicts itself in so basic a topic as hydrogen orbitals? Quantum physics has simply fabricated an ad hoc solution to the problem as well as other elements on the periodic table.

Seems that quantum physics requires even more faith than I had originally thought.

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.

 

[PMZ]

Im still waiting for you to start that thread on the Slayer's theories. it is just as ridiculous to deny the 'greenhouse effect' as it is to claim that CO2 runs the climate.

There is an atmospheric thermal effect which is larger than the so called greenhouse effect which is both predicted, and supported by the laws of physics (no bending or torturing of laws whatsoever) and is, unlike the greenhouse hypothesis, demonstrable in a laboratory setting.

You should stop by Claes Johnson's site and take a look. He is describing some of the very basic problems with quantum physics. Some problems with that line of thinking that are even more basic than I had suspected. Did you know, for instance that quantum physics contradicts itself in so basic a topic as hydrogen orbitals? Quantum physics has simply fabricated an ad hoc solution to the problem as well as other elements on the periodic table.

Seems that quantum physics requires even more faith than I had originally thought.

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.

 

[PMZ]

Im still waiting for you to start that thread on the Slayer's theories. it is just as ridiculous to deny the 'greenhouse effect' as it is to claim that CO2 runs the climate.

There is an atmospheric thermal effect which is larger than the so called greenhouse effect which is both predicted, and supported by the laws of physics (no bending or torturing of laws whatsoever) and is, unlike the greenhouse hypothesis, *demonstrable in a laboratory setting.

You should stop by Claes Johnson's site and take a look. *He is describing some of the very basic problems with quantum physics. *Some problems with that line of thinking that are even more basic than I had suspected. *Did you know, for instance that quantum physics contradicts itself in so basic a topic as hydrogen orbitals?**Quantum physics has simply fabricated an ad hoc solution to the problem as well as other elements on the periodic table. *

Seems that quantum physics requires even more faith than I had originally thought.

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.

 

[SSDD]

Im still waiting for you to start that thread on the Slayer's theories. it is just as ridiculous to deny the 'greenhouse effect' as it is to claim that CO2 runs the climate.

There is an atmospheric thermal effect which is larger than the so called greenhouse effect which is both predicted, and supported by the laws of physics (no bending or torturing of laws whatsoever) and is, unlike the greenhouse hypothesis, demonstrable in a laboratory setting.

You should stop by Claes Johnson's site and take a look. He is describing some of the very basic problems with quantum physics. Some problems with that line of thinking that are even more basic than I had suspected. Did you know, for instance that quantum physics contradicts itself in so basic a topic as hydrogen orbitals? Quantum physics has simply fabricated an ad hoc solution to the problem as well as other elements on the periodic table.

Seems that quantum physics requires even more faith than I had originally thought.

"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.

 

[SSDD]

There is an atmospheric thermal effect which is larger than the so called greenhouse effect which is both predicted, and supported by the laws of physics (no bending or torturing of laws whatsoever) and is, unlike the greenhouse hypothesis, *demonstrable in a laboratory setting.

You should stop by Claes Johnson's site and take a look. *He is describing some of the very basic problems with quantum physics. *Some problems with that line of thinking that are even more basic than I had suspected. *Did you know, for instance that quantum physics contradicts itself in so basic a topic as hydrogen orbitals?**Quantum physics has simply fabricated an ad hoc solution to the problem as well as other elements on the periodic table. *

Seems that quantum physics requires even more faith than I had originally thought.

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

 

[westwall]

There is an atmospheric thermal effect which is larger than the so called greenhouse effect which is both predicted, and supported by the laws of physics (no bending or torturing of laws whatsoever) and is, unlike the greenhouse hypothesis, demonstrable in a laboratory setting.

You should stop by Claes Johnson's site and take a look. He is describing some of the very basic problems with quantum physics. Some problems with that line of thinking that are even more basic than I had suspected. Did you know, for instance that quantum physics contradicts itself in so basic a topic as hydrogen orbitals? Quantum physics has simply fabricated an ad hoc solution to the problem as well as other elements on the periodic table.

Seems that quantum physics requires even more faith than I had originally thought.

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?

 

[westwall]

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

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.

 

[PMZ]

There is an atmospheric thermal effect which is larger than the so called greenhouse effect which is both predicted, and supported by the laws of physics (no bending or torturing of laws whatsoever) and is, unlike the greenhouse hypothesis, demonstrable in a laboratory setting.

You should stop by Claes Johnson's site and take a look. He is describing some of the very basic problems with quantum physics. Some problems with that line of thinking that are even more basic than I had suspected. Did you know, for instance that quantum physics contradicts itself in so basic a topic as hydrogen orbitals? Quantum physics has simply fabricated an ad hoc solution to the problem as well as other elements on the periodic table.

Seems that quantum physics requires even more faith than I had originally thought.

"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.