(IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE)

These are the “EFFECTS OF WARMING”. “NOT THE TRIGGER”. (get the facts right) None of all this tells us what caused the warming in the first place, so you ask, “Whats causing the warming then.??.”
We dont need to know what is changing the climate to be able to say.”CO2 Carbon didn’t do it because without CO2 we “WILL ALL DIE”. Believers need to tell us why we should have to pay for an E.T.S. in order to save the planet?.

AS SKEPTIC’S OF (A G.W./ C.C.) WE HAVE NOTHING TO PROVE. THE RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS (WHO INSIST THEY KNOW BEST) MUST PRODUCE THE “SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND JUSTIFICATION” IN “GRAPHICS, AND RELIVANT DATA, IN BLACK AND WHITE,TO JUSTIFY THEIR BELIEFS of “CATASTROPHIC DISASTERS BECAUSE OF SO CALLED AGW/C.C.”

The planet has cooled since 1998, 10 years, (no one denies these facts not even, the IPCC) yet (CO2 C.Dioxide) levels have progressively increased over that same period.?? “WHY.”??

I would be grateful if any one can clearly name any observations that show Co2 causes significant warming at it’s current levels. “FACTS PLEASE:- NO ASSUMPTIONS, WE THINK,ON THE BALANCE OF EVIDENCE,WE BELIEVE, VERY LIKELY, MAYBE, PERHAPS ETC, ETC,
.

http:members.aol.com/bpl1960/ (// excluded)

An interesting contrary analysis which arrives at a figure of 0.4-0.6C for a doubling of CO2 is by Peter Dietze;

http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/forcing.htm

Another good one was by Michael Hammer, but it seems to have dropped off, and I believe Dr Hammer may have recently passed away.

In point #3 of your summary above, you state that a warming of 1.2 degrees C would be the expected warming if the AGW theory and the IPCC were correct. This would be true if there was a linear relationship between increasing CO2 and increasing temperature (40% of 3 degrees is 1.2 degrees). The relationship, however, is logarithmic, with each additional increase in CO2 having less of an impact than the previous increase. Therefore, the 40% increase in CO2 should have already produced a little more than half of the warming we can expect from a doubling of CO2, or a warming of more than 1.5 degrees C. Since we have not even seen half of that amount yet, something must be wrong with the theory.

I have heard Hansen insist that the warming is ‘in the pipeline’, arguing the oceans are absorbing the energy being trapped by the CO2 and delaying the onset of the warmer temperatures. One problem with this argument is that there is no data to support it. The Argo Floats do not show increasing heat content in the oceans, but seem to be indicating decreasing heat content, in direct contradiction to Hansen.

Another problem is the selectiveness in which Hansen et al employ certain arguments to make their case. The ‘in the pipeline’ argument actually makes more sense if applied to the solar impact on global air temperature. Small changes in the amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the oceans over many decades would manifest in the atmosphere very gradually and be embedded in the ocean cycles. Warming like we saw in the late 20th century could very well have been the result of solar input into the oceans during the middle 20th century (a time of increasing solar activity) being released in the warm phases of the global ocean cycles.

The AGW crowd claims that the lack of a one-to-one correspondence of solar input and global air temperature indicates that the sun is not having an influence. Yet they do not hold CO2 to the same standard. The lack of a one-to-one correspondence between temperature and CO2 is even more pronounced, but they rationalize it with the ‘in-the-pipeline’ argument. If such an argument is valid for CO2, which initially impacts atmospheric temperatures, it is even more valid for solar changes which initially impact ocean temperatures.

The current trend of decreasing oceanic heat content is consistent with the diminishing solar activity, which actually peaked about 50 years ago and seems to be decreasing more rapidly over the last decade. The decreasing oceanic heat content is in direct conflict with the AGW theory and Hansen’s ‘in-the-pipeline’ argument.

My point here is that the AGW Theory is even more lame than you present it.

Smiley noted. The voltage is constant. If it wasn’t everything in the amplifier would vary. A typical rail voltage (power supply DC) for a power amplifier might be +70 Volts. Consider a single-ended power transistor for simplicity. It is connected across the 70 volts with a resistor in the collector side to form a load voltage and limit the current, and another resistor in the emitter circuit to stabilize the device and further limit the current. The base is driven by the input signal.

If you visualize that transistor as a variable resistance, you can see how varying the input signal will vary the output current while keeping the supply voltage constant. It is that large varying current in the output side of the transistor that represents the amplification and that current comes from the power supply.

The transistor is designed to allow a larger current to flow between its emitter and collector (output) for a much smaller current (or voltage) applied between its base and emitter (input). An power amplifier might only have a gain of 10, meaning it amplifies the input current(voltage) 10 times.

Normally, there would be several stages of transistors feeding into one another and a feedback capacitor would be taken from the power transistor output back a couple of stages and fed to the base of a pre-amplifier.

If you want to draw an analogy to the atmosphere, the Sun can be the power supply. However, it’s not part of the feedback loop. Without the supply, the circuit cannot function, but the circuit will still act as an amplifier with the feedback loop cut, at least for a while. Without the transistor, you have no amplification and no feedback.

So, we have the Sun heating the surface. I can’t see where any amplification comes into play after that or where feedback would apply.

In an electronic circuit, there are many amplifiers (transistors are amplifiers that amplify a small voltage to a higher one -but always below -or up to- the rated voltage for the circuit).

Only transformers amplify voltage. Amplifiers amplifes the power output (watts, when doing any work, or amperes, related to current intensity).

My guess for when the whole AGW house of cards falls is close to your Autmn 2009. By then the latest data on the cosmic ray – cloud – climate hypothesis will be in, providing quantitative data. The particle accelerators at CERN will be starting up next spring when the winter European electricity loads are reduced.

So, lets take bets on when the whole AGW hoax is going to collapse. My money’s on Autumn 2009 when we had a colder than normal winter and another wet and cold summer.