Slashdot Mirror

You don't understand, yes, you're quite right. The premise of the whole emissions thing is wrong. CO2 is not a problem and neither are Nx gasses. Now unburnt fuel is a real problem, but that can be dealt with, it is being dealt with, in most modern cars.

The fact that VW cheated the system is cause for concern, but the ridiculous unscientific assumptions that the regulations are based on, they are real cause for concern! . Say No to COP21!

CO2 emissions of cars are pretty much irrelevant! CO, NO and NO2 are worse, but since they are heavier that air, they don't hang around for long either. It's their corrosive nature which may cause the only real problem in the long term, but that is hardly a big problem!

For 18 years the world has not warmed , yet CO2 has increased substantially. On the other hand, the amount of CO2 in the air is miniscule. Just understanding how little CO2 actually is in our atmosphere shows how totally ridiculous the claims of the catastrophic warmists are, but don't let logic and reason get in the way of a good witch hunt!

Just to stir the pot a little more: Say No to COP21! Think of the children! :-P How will they pay all the carbon tax their parents foisted on them??

The fundamental premise that underlies the whole IPCC "science" is false. An atmospheric greenhouse does not exist, at least not in the way described by the greenhouse gas fear brigade. Yes, the science is clear and anyone taking the time to read it will see that the whole carbon reduction frenzy is nothing more than a circus for and of the bamboozled.

Dr Christopher Essex says: "I have been at this for more than 30 years. I got to madness as a conclusion long ago. But now I have accepted that humans are inherently limited...". He wrote about it 10 years ago in his book Taken by Storm. Now Joseph E. Postma has come to the same conclusion.

Why don't people open their eyes, read the material, and stop this ridiculous scam?

Mr. Postma's derogatory phrases are why I've often been puzzled that Jane cites... Mr. Postma

I cite Mr. Postma because he understands the physics of the problem better than you do.

End of story.

I found it very interesting that his followup article, which I also discovered just today, mentioned the same problem with your version of the physics of Spencer's experiment that I mentioned to you in our prior discussion. To wit:

(a) Your math was fundamentally in error, in that you counted some radiated power twice, and

(b) If your idea of the physics were correct, a heat source within a cavity of the same material would form a positive feedback loop and heat to infinity. Which of course is ridiculous. You never did adequately explain how your positive feedback could occur only once, and then stop.

All in all, I found his arguments to be mathematically and physically sound, and yours not. That is why I have stopped arguing the point with you. Repeating unsound physics over and over is not going to make it more true, no matter how much you might wish it would.

What issues, raised by whom, in what scientific journal? Link?

I have frequently been astounded by your ability to find past information that suits your purposes, but when it comes to information that may serve to contradict your position, you suddenly appear to have never heard of Google. It is SO ridiculously easy to find references to issues with GRACE that I'm not going to bother to do it for you, and only an idiot would call that confirmation of a contrary position.

By the way -- and admittedly this is slightly, but only slightly, off-topic -- in regard to your Spencer's thought experiment, last year Astrophysicist Joe Postma wrote that your argument in regard to the physics was ... well, let's just say he used rather derogatory phrases. I was not aware of this article until today, but I thought you might find it of some interest.

So you should either stop incorrectly claiming that the globe isn't warming, or stop citing Llovel et al. 2014 because their conclusion depends on net warming from 2005 to 2013.

I cited Llovel et al. because of their conclusion regarding the deep ocean. I have already stated what research I would have to do before I could responsibly make a claim that the globe was warming.

Neither one of the fine articles linked to in the summary mention radiative forcing. Neither do either of the two references you cite as proofs that radiative forcing has been debunked. The Wikipedia describes radiative forcing as:

In climate science, radiative forcing is defined as the difference of radiant energy received by the earth and energy radiated back to space.

There is no mention of it being refuted (or even controversial); not in the Wikipedia article and not in the two references you cited. In fact, since radiative forcing is a rather simple definition it is hard to imagine how it could be refutable.

Furthermore, this reference of yours, despite having pretty pictures, seems to be based on utter nonsense with the main point being:

Internal [actual greenhouse] temperature cannot exceed maximum strength of solar heating input.

This is utter nonsense because it makes a direct comparison between heat and temperature. It would be helpful if the article mentioned what the temperature limit of the strength of solar heating was. But if they did that, the utter nonsense would be apparent because the temperature of a solar furnace can be many thousands of degrees (either Celsius or Fahrenheit) so if there is limiting temperature, it must be so high as to be meaningless in discussions of global warming.

Another way to see it is that if you can trap solar energy in a box that has perfect insulation (energy comes in but it does not go out) then the temperature of the box will rise without limit. Of course there is no such thing as a perfect insulator so there are limits to how high a temperature you can achieve but these limits are not a direct property of the solar radiation. There is a temperature limit, of a sort, to solar radiation but the limit is the temperature of the surface of the Sun, which again has no bearing on discussion of global warming.

And one more. Apologies for the multiple posts. Re: the argument about "radiative forcing" in atmospheric gases.

Arguments refuting this idea are available HERE and HERE (pdf).