Jan wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 5:24pm:


I doubt that very much.  The evidence is against low climate sensitivity. If you had been studying the subject you'd know what that is. Read through the posts on the top of this board. That explains some of the basics.

Changing ocean pH, and the reduction of calcification rates are probably the most serious issues that we'll have to contend with in the next 100 years or so.

Idso's article is not saying very much. It's saying that we have had higher temparatures and higher CO2 levels in the past. That's correct, but you have to go back millions of years to get CO2 levels similar to those of today. The issue nowadays is the sheer volume of carbon dioxide being added to the atmospheric inventory every year.   

Environmental management is my profession, so I know a bit more than the basics, such as how to derive the radiative forcing equations. I  have a sound understanding of the atmospheric physics.  I can also recognise nonsense and waffle when I see it, and the "Idso's" are incapable of writing anything else. 

muso wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 10:04pm:


Strewth!! Anyone can find this out "low climate sensitivity" is how much the earth’s average temperature will rise as a result of increased concentration of carbon dioxide", wow!!! a brilliant deduction from the PROMOTERS of The CO2 crap. You blokes can't figure out that global warming is a scam to make bigger and better profits and reduce our wealth even further ... When has the Zionist owned media ever told the truth, or given an unbiased report on anything proposed by government.

Quote:


Do you even understand pH levels or what the cause/effects are? Oceans ABSORB CO2 and release OXYGEN. Phytoplankton that live near the ocean’s surface photosynthesize sunlight, ie. they use sunlight and to make food. A byproduct of is oxygen.

Acidity (or low pH balance) of the oceans can be caused by a number of things, chemical and oil spills, sewage and waste disposal into the oceans just to name a few. low pH levels cause low calcification of the oceans and affect many oceanic organisms and can be triggered by warmer waters ... and water temperatures are controled "by the Sun".

Quote:


What do you call "not very much"? More or less than you? Millions of years huh? Does that include the times of previous "pole sifts" when the equator was in a different locality. 

Quote:


OMG!!!! A weatherman taking on "The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change" Go on! amaze us with your radiative forcing equations ... no copy paste now, in your own words and calculations will suffice!

Do your qualifications surpass Idso's?

Idso's current research focus is on carbon sequestration, but he remains actively involved in several other aspects of global and environmental change, including climatology and meteorology, along with their impacts on agriculture. Idso has published scientific articles on issues related to data quality, the growing season, the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2, world food supplies, coral reefs, and urban CO2 concentrations, the latter of which he investigated via a National Science Foundation grant as a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University. In addition, he has lectured in Meteorology at Arizona State University, and in Physical Geography at Mesa and Chandler-Gilbert Community Colleges. From 2001-2002, Idso served as Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy in St. Louis, MO.

Idso is a global warming skeptic. He is co-author with Fred Singer and Robert M. Carter of the reports of the

Nongovernmental

International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a study group of global warming skeptics. Idso advocates that increasing atmosphere carbon dioxide concentrations will instead benefit plant growth.[4] With his name on 67 papers, Idso was the most represented author in a list of 938 peer reviewed papers alleged to be skeptical of global warming. The documents leaked in the Heartland Institute document leak indicate Idso is paid $11,600 per month by the Heartland Institute as part of its advocacy related to climate science. Idso is a science adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute.

The key to Idso's qualifications is the very telling "Non-governmental" ie. he isn't PAID by the government to say what THEY want said.

Anyone who goes along with anything governments say is to be taken with a grain of salt ... however I'm prepared to have you prove your qualifications and just how much you really know. Just leave out the weather BS as that can be refuted as well.

The sun controls the weather not CO2. ALL scientists knew this ... until manmade CO2 and Global warming became the governments agenda.

muso wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 11:08am:


Aww You didn't answer this: "Go on! amaze us with your radiative forcing equations ... no copy paste now, in your own words and calculations will suffice!"

I was so looking forward to your equations ... and watch you cut your own throat.

Oh and you also left the best part of Idso's profile:

Idso's current research focus is on carbon sequestration, but he remains actively involved in several other aspects of global and environmental change, including climatology and meteorology, along with their impacts on agriculture. Idso has published scientific articles on issues related to data quality, the growing season, the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2, world food supplies, coral reefs, and urban CO2 concentrations, the latter of which he investigated via a National Science Foundation grant as a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University. In addition, he has lectured in Meteorology at Arizona State University, and in Physical Geography at Mesa and Chandler-Gilbert Community Colleges. From 2001-2002, Idso served as Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy in St. Louis, MO.

Quote:


Why not International Parsing processing of Climate Change? ... IPCC looks really cool.

I've been studying RF (infomally) for around 13 years through a friend who is a radio ham, his name is Kev Peacock, who studied the atmosphere and it's different levels, because he wanted to know everything about radio waves and what effect RF had on 'sending and receiving'. He wrote an ebook about 14 years ago, titled "something is wrong with the Sun". He also invented and manufactured a free standing one man erection  communications tower (no crane or assistance required to erect it). He is now retired.

Find him here http://users.spin.net.au/~aeitower/, and click on his page on Climate change ... talk to him and tell him Jan sent you.


 

muso wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 5:54pm:


I know enought about the interaction between air pollution and climate to satisfy myself that we are being conned by 'vested' interests and blindsided by scientific bullsh!t and indecipherable equations that the average person hasn't a hope of unravelling, hence the popular notion that manmade CO2 proliferation is the cause for 'warming'.

Tell me! Why did the last ice age end? Was it because the planet became warmer?  and if that's the case, to what do you attribute the planet's rise in temperature? Who (or what) produced all that CO2 way back then?

Quote:


I never said I was a Ham radio operator I said My friend Kev was, who has been teaching me about THE SUN!!! Kev's actual profession is a Mechanical Engineer and has been into electronics for 30 years, his daughter is also a ham. I learned a smattering about ham radio through our friendship, and was introduced to another ham, Dan Simmonds from Pennsylvania, who came out and stayed for a few months, he's a tower manufacturer too http://www.anwireless.com/

Quote:


Don't let your ego run away with you, Kev doesn't impress easily.

Quote:


I haven't studied any radio operation, stop wagging your willy ... Ask Kev about cycle 25 he knows more than I ever could, I just know there's something awry about the Sun, which I learned from kev too.

Quote:


Like I said I don't know about radio waves I'm content to ask questions of Kev when necessary, this hardly seems necessary.

Quote:


Don't be silly you can google anything these days you just have to know what to ask. But I'm not into copy paste, I like to put things in my own words, even if they are unintelligable to the inquirer.

73s Jan

Jan wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 9:16pm:

... and that's the crux in this case.  Do you know what to ask? If you do, then you should easily be able to answer my questions.

muso wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 10:02pm:


How does asking YOU what caused the last glacial period have anything to do with what I know? I understand the Milankovic 'theory', to know it is not a definitive answer. CO2 is only one of the causes for rising temperatures (or lowering). I may not be able to define my answers in acedemic gobbledegoop, (that other members can't understand either), but I DO understand principles, both ethics AND fundemental sources. 'Understanding' is the key to 'knowledge' not a learned by rote or scientific equations. All sciences are merely THEORIES anyway ... nothing is caste in concrete.

Quote:


Been there done that (yawn)

Don't be so arrogant in your attitude. I've already told you I was taught about the sun by Kev, I've read his book (he gave me the first copy when he completed it). As I said before I may not be able to give you "technical" answers but that does not mean I don't understand the PRINCIPLES. You tell me nothing here that Kev hasn't already taught me. Your big mistake is an over exercised ego that assumes no-one is as intelligent as yourself. It is YOU who is saying you have all the answers not me.   

Quote:


Sigh! You tell me oh master. Considering we are 'theoretically' in the last throes of the interglacial (holocene) period it should be lower ... However as I said before it's all theory and doesn't take into consideration 'unknown' factors (or factors outside scientific academe).


Quote:


I'm always up to learning 'something new' providing it is in terms that everyone can understand and not just for 'schooled' academics.

I 'try' to reply to posts in language that EVERYONE can understand, I'm not out to showcase my ego, I'm here to learn as well as impart 'knowledge', and I only become 'arrogant' when someone deliberately tries to sabotage or ridicule what I have written, or replies arrogantly. ie. I treat as I find, and ridicule is one of my major dislikes.

Quote:


I never said it was??? In fact I consider it overly complicated, simple has the best chance of success, Simple = easy.

Quote:


I'm not that arrogant, everyone can be wrong and I am prepared to admit when I am ... You are acting like a know it all professor about to 'educate' a first grader. Why not discuss or debate the pros and cons without all the huff and puff ... after all we are discussing a very debatable topic and we want 'everyone' reading this thread to 'understand' the pros and cons.

muso wrote on Feb 26^th, 2012 at 11:08am:


O' f'chrissake!!! you don't even know what I have said, you answer NOTHING and then demand I answer questions that have nothing to do with anything discussed before.

I received an email from Kev after I forwarded a previous post to him. Here's his response, in full and in a way even a child can understand.

---

LOL - Your "friend" is a little bit "over the top" mate - the sort that loves to use the little bit he knows to make himself appear smarter than those who are not familiar with terminology.

He is saying he worked aural scatter from Scotland (GM), Sweden (SM) and Norway (LA) and he has operated from Scotland, Kenya (5Z4), Victoria (VK3), South Australia (VK5) and Western Australia (VK6) - but no mention of a QLD (VK4) licence.

You can Google information about these frequencies and some of the studies about them - they do form part of the cosmic radiation so nothing special about them - albeit they are usefully for cancer treatment in controlled exposures.

Cosmic radiation covers the spectrum at what we call frequencies ranging from "daylight to dark" - which simply means the range of frequencies present in the radiation from the Sun go from the lowest end of the spectrum at the longest wavelength to the high end of the spectrum at the shortest wave length.

If you take strong "sunlight" it can be measured to around 1 thousand watts per square meter of "irradiance" - in other words it is very "bright light".

If you analyse the "sunlight" you will find that around 500 >< watts is in the infrared spectrum - about 450 >< watts is what we actually see (visible light - and this is what you friend is talking about with the mention of 350 watts/sq m) - my studies were more focused on the lower wattage range around 32 >< watts - which is of course the ultraviolet range  - so when I studied the effects of the various frequencies it was to ascertain the effect on the ionosphere in regard to the way the cosmic radiation in effect made the ionosphere more dense and a suitable "reflector" of the radio wave. The side benefit was discovering the way it also caused heating of the atmosphere - this being a by product of the wat certain amounts were either absorded or emitted - when the normal absorption emmission was changed by increased solar activity (producing the higher level EUV) we had accelerated warming - when the EUV reduced we had a reduction in heating.

One of the biggest problems has been the relatively short term of data collection that we have - we have to rely heavily on ice core sampling to give us an expanded time frame but we cannot rely on it because we know the ice cores are not in fact a true recovery because we really do not know precisely how much ice has already melted  - so it has been what is termed "inexact science" complimented by some "educated guesswork"

Wavelength is usually given in meters which is more easily understood - ie people tune their radios to the "40m" band or the "2m" band - then once we get above that we go to centimeters such as he mentioned "70cm"  and then "23cm" - once we get shorter than 23cm we usually switch to speaking in MHz (MegaHertz) we can of course use the MHz. designation for any wavelength up to where we change to GigaHertz - for example if you were watching satellite TV you would most likely be translating a signal of 2.4 gigahertz.

My studies led me to eventually concentrate mainly on the spectrum at the UV (ultraviolet) and EUV (extreme ultraviolet) frequencies - it is these frequencies that have a very pronounced effect on the atmosphere of our planet - it is their specific "nuclear reaction" with the nitrogen atom that is most important.

Now your friend asks you about "bending/slowing" - well the fact is all light can be bent and it is as it enters the planets atmosphere - it is passing from a medium with very little density into a far more dense medium - some of the spectrum will proceed with deflection while a great deal of it is refracted. That is simple high school physics - you probably did some basic experiments with crystals and prisms and mirrors to demonstrate that light does not nescessarily travel in straight lines.

Out in space the cosmic radiation is spiralling outward because of the rotation of the Sun and the effects of mass attraction (gravity).

Astronomy makes use of the infrared spectrum to form images of distant planets etc.

Ok hope that helps a bit Jan.

Your friend would be better off helping you learn instead of trying to big note himself.

Stay safe and keep well mate.

Love and hugs from all of us.

Kev.