On Feb 27, 9:16 pm,

in the state of understanding since then (e.g., a paper in 2004 resol=

a lot of the discrepency between CO2 and temperature in the paleo rec=

not that it really matters since most people who understand climate,
though who I will admit likely aren't as smart as you, don't think the
paleo record provides much guidance to what is theorized to be happen=

today (see quote above).) Anyway, you seem to know a lot more than t=

scientists on the IPCC.

l Can you direct me to some of your peer-reviewed
l> publications on climate so I can read some correct science that
has
a
l> higher truthiness factor than what is being used by the IPCC?
After all,
l> they probably all learned the stuff they know out of textbooks
written
l> after 1960. =20

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/abstracts/files/kevin1997_1.html

Here is some of your 'peer reviewed' scientific analyses. This is
nothing but liquid horsehit. But your are willing to swallow it like
wine since it is the basic scientific analyses that will be ruling
your life if AGW is successful. That grown people look at this and
believe it is in any way valid or done by actual theoretical
scientists with their 'peer review', is a testament to the guilability
of people and the inability of the scientific community to objectively
criticise and disgard invalid theoretical science.

One point of the complete stupidity of this depiction, is that it says
the atmosphere is radiating 324W, back to the surface. The incident
solar raditation is only 168W.

Yet the theoretical Phobiacs claim continually that O2 and N2 do not
absorb infrared radiation. So the water vapor which is about 2.5% and
the CO2 which is 4/10,000, are responsible for this 324Wm-2??

It surely cannot be the thermal motion of the O2 and N2 transfering
this energy to the surface. A sphere of air would have the diameter of
24.00 cm. Radiating luminosity in one direction, 14.7W at 324Wm-2.
This is 14.7Joules per second.

The heat capacity of this mole is about 29 Joules/mol/deg. So every 2
seconds the heat capacity for one degree ofthe mole of air would have
to be transfered to the earth from the air next to it, for this energy
to be transferred from the air by thermal contact. This defies any
known analyses of the air and surface and convection.

So how does the atmosphere radiate 324Wm-2 back to the surface when
the 'radiative forcing of water vapour is 75 W=B7m-2, while for carbon
dioxide it is 32 W=B7m-2. """The longwave radiative forcing of the
climate system for both clear (125 W=B7m-2) and cloudy (155 W=B7m-2)""
It is the 2% water vapor and negligible CO2 concentrations????
What is forcing the other 170Watts of the atmosphere?????

Remember, N2 and O2 do not absorb IR in this theory. Or does it matter
that the theory is conhesive at all??

The 236Wm-2 that supposedly makes the 255K temperature which is then
bolstered by grenhouse gases to 287, would not describe this average
temperature. The temperature described by the average of the energies
is not the same as the average temperatures because energy is a fourth
power to
temperature.

Thus the average temperature of 287K cannot be achieved by the
radiative forcing of 125Wm-2 or 155Wm-2. This diagram depicts a
complete failure in calculating averages and values for energy and
temperature.

But who needs math when you got cute little peer reviewed diagrams
like this???

Peer review accepts this charlatan fraud.

And then it is claimed that 40Wm-2 passes back through the air without
being absorbed. This is important to this false theory because it
allows the radiation to be trapped by the net increase of 100ppm of
CO2. This goes with the other needed false point that you must depict
an effect from existing 'grenhouse gases', to justify the hysteria at
the very minute concentration increases.

Valid science can PROVE this to be false theory.

The fact is that the energy that reaches the surface and is absorbed,
is transfered back through the atmosphere to space and determines the
temperature of the atmosphere. The atmosphere does not determine the
temperature of the surface as is needed for this fraudulent theory.

The fact that there are those on the public payroll at NASA who claim
to be scientists and cannot objectively analyse this diagram, does not
mean this diagram is valid. It is just proof of the invalidity of many
degrees in science and the pervasivness of the propaganda and
indoctrination of 'grenhouse theory' within the theoretical sciences
and the suppression of valid theoretical science within the 'peer'
review of the charlatans that dominate theoretical science.

Any such laws passed based on this invalid science will go directly to
federal court as unconstitutional. Secondly they should go to criminal
court for prosecution of the relevant crimes.

Deatherage

Any such laws passed based on this invalid science will go directly to
federal court as unconstitutional. Secondly they should go to criminal
court for prosecution of the relevant crimes.

Deatherage

Here is some of your 'peer reviewed' scientific analyses. This is
nothing but liquid horsehit. But your are willing to swallow it like
wine since it is the basic scientific analyses that will be ruling
scientists with their 'peer review', is a testament to the guilability
criticise and disgard invalid theoretical science.
solar raditation is only 168W.

Yet the theoretical Phobiacs claim continually that O2 and N2 do not
It surely cannot be the thermal motion of the O2 and N2 transfering
seconds the heat capacity for one degree ofthe mole of air would have
known analyses of the air and surface and convection.
that the theory is conhesive at all??
bolstered by grenhouse gases to 287, would not describe this average
an effect from existing 'grenhouse gases', to justify the hysteria at
to be scientists and cannot objectively analyse this diagram, does not
degrees in science and the pervasivness of the propaganda and
indoctrination of 'grenhouse theory' within the theoretical sciences
Deatherage