I am still curious about Daves carburetor.

Teachers here always make out like you are the bane of their life.

did you take into account ridership? Is the train full to capacity when you calculate that it costs $20?

Does morality tend to get lost in the advance of technology or is it the forebearer?

Does anyone want to predict what 30 years from now will bring?

Truth is, aren't all elements are exactly that. Otherwise, they would have vastly elongated signatures in a spectrum instead of narrow absorption and emissions features. And yet, have you not indicated that other gases such as methane are far more efficient as aborbers? As for water vapour, yes that makes sense as a broadband absorber, however, even its efficiency is going to be at a peak level.

You consistently ignore the fact that the atmosphere has a pressure temperature gradient by conveniently mentioning only the incidental that saturation of absorption occurs near the surface. Your implication has been that adding more CO2 will not make a difference (all viewers can find that in the links provided in that post.) Your intent is quite clear. No amount of coy, “that’s not what I meant” is going to take that away. You simply base your whole “The Greenhouse Gas Effect is flawed” theory on that false premise.

This is about climate science and not mitigation strategies.

Tell us all why contradictory observation isn’t enough to discount Shaviv’s hypothesis.

That is another testimony to the resilience of The Collective’s argument.

Lol. This old straw man again?

This caught my eye, as I recently learned of an effort to resolve this issue through a new form of large scale, high capacity battery:

I recognize that there are those who are inclined NOT to believe any government funded scientist, or for some other reason are convinced there is no basis to believe human activity could have any significant impact on climate.

Actually, that's an interesting point because a lot of funding for research comes from government coffers, and yet a couple of governments have actually been philosophically opposed to the concept of AGW. So clearly the science is not actually serving any political agenda .

however, does that take into account human impacts on vegetation?

One of the interesting projections I heard about once is the long-term future for Earth's biosphere in which, ironically, carbon dioxide could become in very short supply.

A 'green' movement needs to happen and happen quickly. But it shouldn't be because of a fear of AGW. It should be because it just simply makes friggin sense.

The first part of this is statement is quite questionable... Increasing CO2 50% doesn't cause many (if any) plants to grow 50% faster, because photosynthesis rates are most often limited by the amount of light available (not CO2), as well as by the amount of water and other "nutrients" available.

Don’t think so? The propaganda is so predictably repetitious that the rebuttal(s) is(are) as easy as referencing a previous post from months ago. Check out The Collective’s message 231 of:

http://forums.plentyoffish.com/10593991datingPostpage10.aspx

The fallacy of assuming a relatively uniform temperature and pressure gradient in the atmosphere (and one DOES when they compare it to “layers of paint”) is well known. This is the SAME fallacy of the 1901 experiment used to “refute” the GHG effect. It was wrong then. It is wrong now. It was wrong the first ten times (and that is a modest estimate) you mentioned it. It will be wrong no matter how many times people repeat this subterfuge online.

Specifics, please.

However, clearly the question of the interaction between cosmic ray primary and secondary particles with the atmosphere and there impact on cloud production isn't well understood,.....

the question is what happens when it's all released again.

Even way back in my high school youth.......

That's a he said/she said argument that leads nowhere but circles.

Except that such emissions don't make it through the Van Allen belts....

He "ended" the cold war only in that the social experiment that was the Soviet Union was rapidly running out of gas, anyway.

repetitious tripe…..argumentum ad nauseam…… sketchy (or dodgy)…….sensationalist……..bravado

tenuous (one could say a “coincidence”)

earn some publicity (and potentially some extra income for movie rights etc.)

Ronald Reagan marked a significant turning point to the worse in the U.S.

Were it not for him we'd be global leaders in alternative energy, rather than buying our windmill parts from overseas.

I remember it as part of my school lessons in the '70s.

I think it's time to look at energy usage beyond the AGW debate.

You would rely on popularity and titles over science

However, again, since the majority of climatologists.......

One way that the sun affects the climate is through clouds. The sun's magnetic field shields the Earth from its high energy particles, called cosmic rays. The rays help form clouds that reflect the sun's energy back into space and cool the planet.

Appeals to authority.

And does any of your expertise relate to actual climate?

So you sail. I watch weather all the time for my interest in astronomy. Doesn't make me a climatologist.

So, if an astronomer tells me Mars is green, because he's a dissenting voice, should I give it any weight?

Does no one think for themselves, anymore?

But since, again, the majority of climate scientists are actually in agreement with AGW,

they're the ones actually doing the science.

You "guess?"

I go back to the example of Venus. Surface temp over 900 degrees.

you're just not selling me on what you're selling.

I don't know what your investment is in denying AGW

So what if global warming IS a natural phenomenon?

Do we simply just carry on with the way we're going? Using up fossil fuels that will eventually run out anyway. And in the process of burning these fuels, pay the obvious price as breathing abnormalities and disorders rise globally?

Do we, smug in the knowledge that it's all Natures fault that the Earth is warming, continue to decimate and plunder the jungles and natural resources all around the world, wiping out whole species of life in the process?

Do we continue using ineffective technology without even bothering to innovate and research smarter, cheaper and yes, cleaner technologies?

Have you wondered why they might melt in the first place?

However, if CO2 increases in the atmosphere, then doesn't it stand that even that narrow band absorption increases?

Really, why is that so hard to accept?

Ever notice that those scientists who are most insistent that the science is "wrong" are drawing a paycheque from those who have a stake in continued oil production?

Some of them are the same "scientists" who insisted that cigarettes weren't harmful to our health

I did not say they were entitled to the support or even felt they were entitled to the support..

then come up with a non-entitlement system to support them.

When we educate our populace we become more competitive on the world stage.

When we allow employers to pay people willing to work less than a living wage.

I'm sure though, that "liberal" men would overlook that as long as she was hot...and agreed with the 'rest' of their "core values", right?

has it occurred to you that you wouldn't *have* Special Olympics if it weren't for a Librul?

I didn't know that conservatives gave blood.

The vast majority of Americans who need support do not get the support they need.