Death knell for AGW
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
I found a reference book that's perfect for you:
I bet it has sh*t about global warming in it.
It's no wonder you knew where to find it.
The levels of CO2 are not a part of any cycle we are aware of.
The evidence supporting what? The evidence is readily available to anyone with a spectrometer. Shine a light through a gas and measure what wavelengths come through the other side.
We need to look before we leap. It's all there if you would have looked.
http://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=rkwiU5sso8TyB4rZgPgN#q=glacial-interglacial+co2+
Last edited:
Your spectrometer has the advantage here. It may surprise you that few of us poorer scientists have them. Why do you have this hate on for a harmless friendly gas?
What pretty basic physics are you talking about? Electromagnetism is the premier force of the universe by an unasssailable margin and yet it is nowhere to be found mentioned in climate models. That one fact alone disqualifies them utterly and irretrievable. Nothing climatic happens without electrical input, nothing period happens without the electrical component. Where is it in your models? Electromagnetism is the basis of physics.
Clouds of gas in space glowing because they've been ionized, they are no longer gas, they are in the fourth state plasma, gas math no good any more, models infantile nonsense for us cheezeburger slaves. I'm angry global warming not coming, palm trees will never grow in Nova Scotia, summers will continue to shorten. Global warming is designed to make us delay getting ready for the long winter ahead.
But wait the standard concensus model says the mysterious appearing wind rubs the atmosphereic molecules together much like the trick with sticks and produces heat which excites the other gas till it isn't and it glows, ask them what wind is or how cold fifty ton clouds hang in the air. I associate their models with glue sniffing.
Are you kidding? Exactly what do you think shortwave and longwave radiation are? There is no greenhouse effect if there is no electromagnetic radiation, specifically short and longwave in the infrared region of the spectrum.
Rubbish. It's not wind. Electromagnetic waves leaving the Earth collide with a molecule. At specific wavelengths the molecules bonds will rotate, vibrate, and then give off the increased energy as heat.
So why do you need CO2 in the model?
Because otherwise the temperature of the modelled earth is incorrect. Because you're missing a large part of the physics in the system without these interactions.
protons coming in, you even got the direction wrong
From your model...I'm talking about reality. Maybe you should take Petros' advice and write a paper. Put your views up there for scrutiny. Dare you. :lol:
That was kind of the point. Before suggesting a series on climate change, you should get a grasp of some more basic science first. After you manage that, I'd suggest the PHSC 13400 lectures from University of Chicago:
Lecture 1 - Scope of the Class - YouTube
You can audit the entire course, for free! And of course learn...
You're getting close to discovering Dark Matters cousin Dark CO2 aren't you. You are missing a large part of evidence to support your loony hypothesis about climate. Never mind the change.
An economics school? What the hell do they know?
You're getting close to discovering Dark Matters cousin Dark CO2 aren't you. You are missing a large part of evidence to support your loony hypothesis about climate. Never mind the change.
Try going to the campus in Antigonish this summer, and ask for a demonstration of the spectrometer that Zipper was explaining to you. See for yourself.
An economics school? What the hell do they know?
U of Chicago is not an economics school...it's a research university. Yes, they do happen to have a strong economics faculty, but they also operate something you may have heard of called Fermilab? The university has a very high research activity score. It's one of the best schools in the US.
Spectrometers are cheap like borscht unless you looking form ones that get into the gamma rays. If it's nanometers you want, you're looking around $200.
Have fun kids.
Have fun kids.
Enrico would be turning in his grave.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
The gamma would be where I'd like to look, but two hundred bucks is within me budget constraints. I might buy one for the coffee table.
Welcome to the Fermilab Cafe iCafe
Weekly Menu Mar 9 - Mar 15
Disclaimer
SmartCuisine
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Oatmeal Raisin Pancakes
Sausage, Egg & Cheese Croissant All-American Breakfast
Bacon, Egg, & Cheese Bagel Crustless Quiche Casserole
Ham, Egg, & Cheese English Muffin
Canadian Bacon, Egg, & Cheese Texas Toast
Mexican Omel
A short visit to Fermilab has changed my mind, they are doing wonderful things in high end breakfast research. I'm excited.
Oh, yeah, they SAY "any style," but just try asking for a la mode and see what they say!