Name the Major Flaw In This Signal Processing Analysis Probl

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:58:31 -0600, Bill Ward
bward_at_ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 23:41:27 +0000, Richard Dobson wrote:

On 21/12/2011 22:11, Eric Jacobsen wrote: .

The fact that it's happened before should make the bar very high for
claiming that the mechanisms for it happening now are different than in
the past.

But nobody is claiming the mechanisms are different. They still exist,
insofar as they can be quantified. The claim is that a new mechanism has
been ~added~, in the period of a few generations. That's the dsp bit -
it is a signal inside a fair amount of noise.

It should also make the bar very high for placing large
economic burdens on people and justifying transfer of large quantities
of wealth based on claims that "it's different this time".

I don't think that bar has been met, not even close.

Well it has always the case that not doing something is generally
cheaper than doing something! Prediction as a fundamental scientific
yardstick is clearly overrated and just plain inconvenient; best just to
wait and see, regardless of the magnitude of the possible consequence.
So, what level of evidence, what degree of thoroughness of the science,
would be required to lower that bar?

Evidence for, and explanation of, some plausible mechanism that allowed
CO2 to heat the surface would be a good start. Preferably one that
doesn't violate too many fundamental physical principles.

The fact that you don't want to believe X doesn't actually imply
that X violates anything. If that doesn't make sense to you, just
ignore it; it was mostly posted to appeal to the sane people
anyway.

On 21/12/2011 23:58, Bill Ward wrote:

Evidence for, and explanation of, some plausible mechanism that allowed
CO2 to heat the surface would be a good start. Preferably one that
doesn't violate too many fundamental physical principles.

Well, you can start with the work of Tyndall:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall

Hopefully that was long enough ago to not be tarred with the
conspiracy-theory brush.

Richard Dobson

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:19:01 +0000, Richard Dobson
richarddobson_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 21/12/2011 23:58, Bill Ward wrote:
..

Evidence for, and explanation of, some plausible mechanism that allowed
CO2 to heat the surface would be a good start. Preferably one that
doesn't violate too many fundamental physical principles.


Well, you can start with the work of Tyndall:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall

Hopefully that was long enough ago to not be tarred with the
conspiracy-theory brush.

My, you're optimistic. What do you want to bet that Tyndall won't
turn out to have been an agent of the Illuminati by the time he
gets done?

I suspect Teh Konspiracy necessarily dates back at
least as far as anyone's been accumulating evidence that he
doesn't like.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:19:01 +0000, Richard Dobson
richarddobson_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 21/12/2011 23:58, Bill Ward wrote:

Evidence for, and explanation of, some plausible mechanism that allowed
CO2 to heat the surface would be a good start. Preferably one that
doesn't violate too many fundamental physical principles.

Funny how the *OBSEREVED* explanation has been known for over 130
years.....

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 21:24:45 -0500, Orval Fairbairn
orfairbairn_at_earthlink.net> wrote:

In article <8re4f7lg55quqco9245n3jfg0msl2paifl_at_4ax.com>,
Bill Snyder <bsnyder_at_airmail.net> wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:43:36 -0500, Orval Fairbairn
orfairbairn_at_earthlink.net> wrote:

In article <63r2f7ducv7edcioqmqus1r4ln81g06ve6_at_4ax.com>,
AGWFacts <AGWFacts_at_ipcc.org> wrote:

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:40:41 -0800 (PST), Rune Allnor
allnor_at_tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

Reducing CO2 emmisions won't matter, because
CO2 has no influence on global warming.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2
levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- catoni52_at_sympatico.ca

All that the wbsits says is:

"Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect
Arthur P. Smith
(Submitted on 29 Feb 2008)
A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect
is refuted. A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is
mathematically constrained to have an average temperature less than or
equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for
Earth prove that without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the
average temperature of Earth's surface would be at least 33 K lower than
what is observed.
Comments:
9 pages, 2 figures
Subjects:
Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (physics.ao-ph)
Cite as:
arXiv:0802.4324v1 [physics.ao-ph]
Submission history
From: Arthur Smith [view email]
[v1] Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:11:02 GMT (39kb)
Which authors of this paper are endorsers?"


Where's the beef?

It refutes the claim above that, " . . . CO2 has no influence on
global warming." Did Mommy forget to read you the quoted material?

Did Mommy forget to teach you basic study?

I don't believe the study of your lies and/or delusions is basic.
I'm an engineer, not a psychiatrist.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:16:43 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWFacts_at_ipcc.org> wrote:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:19:01 +0000, Richard Dobson
richarddobson_at_blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 21/12/2011 23:58, Bill Ward wrote:

Evidence for, and explanation of, some plausible mechanism that allowed
CO2 to heat the surface would be a good start. Preferably one that
doesn't violate too many fundamental physical principles.

Funny how the *OBSEREVED* explanation has been known for over 130
years.....

Well, you can start with the work of Tyndall:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall

Among many others.

Hopefully that was long enough ago to not be tarred with the
conspiracy-theory brush.

Joseph Fourier in 1824 and 1827
John Tyndall in 1859
Svante Arrhenius in 1896
C.J. Fox in 1909
A. Angstron in 1918
Chamberlain and Fowle in 1916
E.O. Hulburt in 1931
S.G. Callendar in 1937
Professor Gilbert Plass in 1950
Carl Sagan in 1960
Stephen Hawking in 1960
Isaac Asimov in 1968
Wally Broecker in 1975
Richard Feynman and "The Jasons" in 1980

Richard Dobson

Explanations aren't observed; observations are.

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 03:21:53 +0000 (UTC), Kaz Kylheku
kaz_at_kylheku.com> wrote:
Explanations aren't observed; observations are.

Phenomena are observed; the greenhouse effect is a phenomena.

I see, so if the surface radiation is abosrbed and turned into heat within,
say, a few dozen meters, /regardless of the mixture of gases/, it does look
like this CO2 scaremongering really is a bunch of crap.