What would it take?

[Drich]

No.. I claim to be a engineer who has a successful business in the field that I work (Which happens to center around temperature change, and the mechanical means needed to drop and maintain temperature change even with a 100+ degree delta between set point and ambient conditions.)

If you do not understand that the science behind something like temp change and the science behind the bull shit global climate change are different then you are the uneducated fool. ANYONE with any education concerning thermal change or properties temperature exchange knows the current models that explain or try to explain global climate change are incomplete at best/fraudulent at worst.

The first thing we need to look at is how the industry/science determines a objects resistant to heat. this is determined by R-value which is calculated from the insulating properties of it shielding k-factor. both need to establish a constant in the way of a heat source. meaning in order to determine an objects resistance to heat (which will tell us if the object is warming to the addition of insulating material such as carbon in the atmosphere) we need to establish the heat source out put. and make sure it is the same during the test period. During R-rating test we must provide a constant heat source at a predetermined distance none of which can be moved. Because if the heat source puts out less heat, It will look like the insulating media is working too well and the object being insulated temp will drop. this is true when you move the heat source or test object away from the heat source as well. The opposite will happen when you move the object closer and or increase the heat source output.

Still with me?

Now here is the problem with the "science" behind global warming. The sun's output is not constant. nor is the earth's rotation around the sun round like a spinning wheel on an axle. (google it) the sun's out put varies from year to year anywhere from .5 to 15% since we have been measuring it in 1978.

The next thing we need to look at orbit and it's contribution to climate change. A long time ago we figured out our orbit is not round like a wheel but more egg shaped on a hulu hooping axis. Which could put us several hundred miles closer to the sun on a given summer day or several thousand miles away from the sun a few years later on the same day.  however we have been able to calculate or predict solar activity in relation to our orbit with some accuracy for some time as the nature of cold and hot years has been around for some time. As farmer almanacs has been able to predict hot and cold years thus giving us planting seasons for several hundred years. Which also means solar proximity is indeed a major contributor to climate change. (as planting season can move weeks even months) Which is also why we can have winters that can end in February or it can still be snowing in places as late as may.

Next we need to understand just how much of the ice cap left over from the last ice age deflected solar energy, and the nature of a diminishing return as the ice cap melts. As the Ice cap were said to directly reflect upto 90% of the sun's energy.

Then finally we need to understand how green house gasses work. Here is where the current Al Gore "science fails." It claims the Co2 magnifies the sun'r rays and redirect them to the surface like a green house effect.

This is not how atmospheric gasses work.  Let say if the sun is a constant heat source, and a unit of sun light contains 10 units of solar energy. (just a number/place holder)

Gore says/thinks this 10 unit in the presents of co2 is magnified to 15 or 20, when infact only the sun can pack potential energy in to a unit of sun light... Green houses through their glass plates focus or direct sunlight and stores energy while providing insulation and protection When in fact co2 "unpacks solar energy." Meaning in the presents of co2 a unit of sun light may unpack 8 to 9 units of solar energy in the form of radiant energy/co2 allows heat to transfer in the "air." unlike on mars or the moon, there in the shade it can be -20*F and a few inches away in the sun it can be 200*F the difference here is far less in the the Co2 unpacks that solar energy from the shade and the sun and finds a happy medium of say 80*F in the shade and 90 in the sun.

Here's the thing.. Co2 can only unpack what is available in a unit of light.. more Co2 will only allow for more efficient heat transfer from sun light to the earth, it can not magnify it. it will increase the temp but only to the point where the unit of sun light energy is expended. IF the earth warms past this mark it is not because of Co2. it is because the unit of sunlight's energy has been increased or the earths insulation is depleted allowing more sunlight to hit the surface. Meaning the melting ice caps.


That said right or wrong, the point I am making here is I have studied this subject in depth and over a period of years tweaking my own understanding of the available data. I am not one to have another do my thinking for me as you guys are. I would never be content on simply taking the off the shelf explanation simply because that is what "science" says. That make you and people like you just as stupid as the christian you claim accept a "god did it explanation." How can you not see you in this instance are a different side of the same coin. Instead of lemming yourself behind the "religious" guy you are lemming yourself behind the science guy.. Seriously what is the difference if you are following in blind faith science or religion???

Questions like that are the reason you are being pm'ed to ignore me/allow me to burn out. because I ask question that make you people doubt what you believe and why. that scares the hell out of some of the older people here who want me gone but cant get me gone. so they are trying to shut me out to shut me up.
(Which BTW have been melting since the end of the last ice age. Very slow at first, but once we hit the point of dimishing return it accelerates just like any other body of ice would.)

Congratulations. You have proven empty vessels make most noise (once again). And congratulations on your grasp of primary school level mathematics. This is the kind of primitive understanding that has resulted in idiot trumpists to deny the FACT of climate change.

Here is what you should have said:






Yes, now we have gone from primary school mathematics that you so deftly and proudly display to actual mathematics - university level mathematics including those beautiful second order Laplacian operators. Recognise those? No? Not following me now?

Leave the science to those that are capable.

Bolting fridges onto trucks an engineer does not make.

---

I am/was branded learning disabled for most of my life, so I take nothing for granted I taught myself

It shows.

What I should have said??? You mean the article from NASA that I quoted and left a link to who's "math" completely support my theory? is that why you cut out the quotation in your response?