« SESF Launches TechForum | Main | What’s a fair share in 2012? »

27 January 2012


Douglas Keachie

Your most recent post, double posted?

Russ Steele

Well California is not listening the scientist, they are about to mandate more zero emission vehicles. Transportation accounts for 40% of California's greenhouse gases.

Today, California air regulators will likely approve a package of “Clean Car” standards that many are calling historic. But there’s nothing new about that, the Progressive tried it once before, before CARB had AB-32 and it failed. But, failure is not an indicator it will not work again, now that CARB has some AB-32 clout to force people to buy the kind of cars that Progressive would like us to buy. Why to save the planet from an imaginary threat of global warming.

According to Dan Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis, and a member of California’s Air Resources Board.

"Well the problem of oil and greenhouse gases is not really a California problem, it’s a global problem. So what California’s really doing with its climate policies generally, with the zero-emission-vehicle program, with the vehicle greenhouse gas standards…is creating a model for the rest of the country and the rest of the world. We are making a great effort to design the zero-emission-vehicle program…in such a way that they are easily replicated and easily coordinated by other states and by the federal government."

Damn the science, we Progressive are saving the world for a problem that does not exist.

Russ Steele

In last nights Florida GOP presidential debate, in his closing statement, Rick Santorum gestured over to Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney and said very matter of factly:

Cap-and-trade… both of them bought into the global warming hoax… cap-and-trade, top-down control of our energy and manufacturing policy…

That is one of my issues with both Romeny and Gingrich, they are both scientifically illiterate.

Paul Emery

Just a reminder that we went to war in Iraq based on "incontrovertible" evidence that later proved to be false. Where was this crowd when that decision was made?

Russ Steele


The "incontrovertible" evidence was based on Saddam saying that he had WMDs and his deception efforts to convince the world that he truly had WMDs. The parallels with the global warming hoax are astounding. The warmers have constructed an elaborate deceptions effort to convince the world that humans are responsible for planetary warming. But, we know that it is just not possible, because you cannot warm the earth by a gas which is colder than the object it is suppose to be warming. It is clear there is no proven relationship between increasing CO2 and temperatures. If there was a relationship, temperature should be rising, as CO2 is increasing, and temperatures are flat or declining over the last 15 years.

Paul if you disagree, please provide some proof that humans are responsible for increased global warming.


Let's remember the 'It's a slam dunk, Mr. President' that shut down Bush II's concern about the slim evidence about WMDs was from Democrat, and Clinton appointee to be the head of the CIA, George Tenet.

Russ just can't shake the "hoax" idea, but it isn't a hoax. Just very bad science complicated by the huge amount of money that has been made available for researchers getting the desired results. Physicist Nir Shaviv, the author of the paper that clinched it for me, has written that he saw one colleague's paper rejected with a note that "any paper which doesn’t support the anthropogenic GHG theory is politically motivated, and therefore has to be rejected". I'm sure that editor really thought that to be the case, with the usual lack of self-awareness of those deeply inculcated into the fashion of the day.

The paper worth reading is "Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?" (2003) by astrophysicist Nir Shaviv and geochemist Jan Veizer, two scientists in very different fields who only came together when Shaviv discovered the only thing correlating with his plots of galactic cosmic ray flux was Veizer's plot of ocean temperatures over the the last 500+ million years. And the correlation was striking.

Douglas Keachie

"we know that it is just not possible, because you cannot warm the earth by a gas which is colder than the object it is suppose to be warming"

If you think that is the argument being advanced, no wonder you are confused. Gases do not have inherent temperatures. Up the the point where the bonds between the atoms are broken, gases can be heated.

Try looking at the CO2 as reflecting heat back to the earth's surface. It matters not what temperature a mirror is, it will still reflect heat from elsewhere quite nicely.

George Rebane

DougK 123pm - Your argument about the temperature of the reflecting gas (CO2) is correct, and the general circulation models account for it, albeit erroneously. This withstanding, the evidence against the predicted long term global warming and its various side effects is itself not affected and stands as presented by the various scientists and engineers.


While "because you cannot warm the earth by a gas which is colder than the object it is suppose to be warming" isn't an argument I'd make, it's much less idiotic than thinking of the "greenhouse effect" as a mirror.

First, it isn't about any "inherent temperature" of the gases in the atmosphere. It's just the simple fact that the atmosphere is cooler than the ground. A lot cooler. The world average temp at 14000' ranges from -19C to about -23C, and is currently lower than it's been in the decade the satellite has been taking the measurement.

CO2 or any other infrared absorptive gas doesn't reflect heat. The molecule absorbs the IR and becomes more energetic. The energy is then, in effect, radiated back out in all directions, including into space. In fact, mostly towards space.

Douglas Keachie

From NASA, Global Cimate Change:

"Earth's atmosphere does the same thing as the greenhouse. Gases in the atmosphere such as carbon dioxide do what the roof of a greenhouse does. During the day, the Sun shines through the atmosphere. Earth's surface warms up in the sunlight. At night, Earth's surface cools, releasing the heat back into the air. But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That's what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 59 degrees Fahrenheit, on average."


So Greg, NASA is lying to our kids?


Atmospheric physics as presented to 3rd graders has limitations, Keach. What I wrote can be seen clearly in their graphics.

George Rebane

And here's the view from the (way) other side about how the corrupt Right is trying to brainwash our kids.

Applying their arguments symmetrically and seeing that theirs are already in practice never occurs to these yokels.

Douglas Keachie

"But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That's what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 59 degrees Fahrenheit, on average."

And none of that heat is reflected downwards, as if by a mirror? In case you didn't get it, I was speaking metaphorically. I did not mean to imply that the CO2 became a giant glass globe with a silver surface each night.

Douglas Keachie

"CO2 or any other infrared absorptive gas doesn't reflect heat. The molecule absorbs the IR and becomes more energetic. The energy is then, in effect, radiated back out in all directions, including into space. In fact, mostly towards space."

"gas doesn't reflect heat"

"radiated back out in all directions"

which to the layman is just about the same as reflecting, as the CO2 then becomes a measurable heat source. If the CO2 wasn't there, there would be nothing to absorb the heat, and it would ALL keep on going right out into space.

George Rebane

DougK 229pm - Physics teaches that 'reflection' is a complex subject area that differs from the micro (atomic) to the macro scales handling energies that arrive in the form of particles (mass) to waves. For the level of discussion here, and most certainly in the way that the general circulation models handle it, the simplified view of CO2 reflection applies. It is a physical process at a boundary layer that returns a specified portion of impinging energy and allows the remainder to pass through or be absorbed by the layer.

Douglas Keachie

Thanks, George, that's just the way one of my advanced students demonstrated it in a animation back in 1992. In addition to winning a sizable chunk of cash for the flic, made with Autodesk's Animator, he went on to MIT.

Russ Steele

Gregory your 01:12,

In reference to my use of the word hoax. That was my original thought when I first heard about human caused global warming, then I was chastised by intelligent people commenting on my blog and I stopped using the term. Then Climatgate I happened, and we learned about hiding data, using fudge factors in the climate models and that data was being adjusted to fit the models and finally scientist were refusing to share their data with reputable scientist to replicate their experiments and validate the result. It was clear if it was not a hoax then it was fraud.

Again I was chastised for calling human caused global warming a fraud. Then Climategate II happened and we learned that Michael Mann admits in those emails that even he cannot replicate the experiment that produces the Hockey Stick, because he did not keep good notes and lost some of the data. In addition, we find there was a converted effort to deceive the public by a small group scientist that were IPCC climate assessment authors, and chapter editors. I find deception in the definition of both Fraud and Hoax. I think the general public has clear mental picture about hoaxes, as fraud is more complex, requiring more explanation. Thus, I am still using the word hoax to when referring to claims that human CO2 emissions are responsible for global warming.

Fraud: fraudulence, cheating, swindling, embezzlement, deceit, deception, double-dealing, chicanery, sharp practice.

Hoax: joke, jest, prank, trick; ruse, deception, fraud, bluff, confidence trick; informal con, spoof, scam, setup.

I will now use deception, we were deceived by money grubbing climate whores.

Russ Steele

Douglas your 02:04

Yes NASA is lying to our children. NASA has been adjusting the raw temperature data take by the Weather Service to reflect their climate model. They are making up temperature reading where there have been no thermometers for 10 and some case 20 years, especially in the arctic. NASA claims the sea-level rise is accelerating, when their own satellites show they are not. I could go on and on, but if you visit Anthony Watt blog Watts Up With That you will find a reference page. See for you self if NASA is lying.


Russ, it remains that the likes of Mann and others aren't trying to make anyone believe anything that they don't already believe. They are so convinced they are right they discard the evidence to the contrary because they are so sure it's wrong. That's where the 'scientific fraud' lies.

George, I think you are oversimplify the GSM far too much; I believe it's much more a finite element analysis than a boundary value issue, most of the heat transfer is from convection, not radiation, and the biggest error is the decision of the IPCC to accept the very simplified and unverified model that a forcing (like a little more CO2 making it a tiny bit warmer) will cause more evaporation, but the added humidity will not result in more clouds that will reflect sunlight away.

The greenhouse effect does not reflect the heat back, it just slows the transfer of it back into space.

Douglas Keachie

"hey are making up temperature reading where there have been no thermometers for 10 and some case 20 years, especially in the arctic. " When Greg's school evaluating people do this, it is called "statistical analysis and interpolation." Yup , I'd be inclined to cll LA teacher evaluations a hoax too.

Douglas Keachie

In housing "The greenhouse effect does not reflect the heat back, it just slows the transfer of it back into space." this is known as insulating. Yes, it traps heat for longer periods of time, which means the thermometer goes where, up or down, over that longer period of time. Greg is showing promise of becoming an aspiring politician.

George Rebane

Gregory 437pm - not at all. It's only a finite element analysis in the sense that they discretize the atmosphere and ground layer into homogenous hunks and, as you point out, solve the boundary layer problem. Nevertheless, in that they can account for all kinds of heat transfers and the models to compute them. I'll bet a dinner that the top layers containing the greenhouse CO2 transfers use a simple reflection model for how much heat goes into space and how much is returned to the lower levels.

But we know there are several ways to skin that cat and all of them have a knob on them that allows the user to adjust feedback gains.


George, unfortunately to really know I think one would need to be speaking to the architects of the 11 major GCM's to get the details, but you're making one of the usual mistakes... the radiation isn't just up and down, but equally to the sides.

If I thought there was a good way to adjudicate, I'd take the bet. In fact, if I had Romney's money I might bet 10K... ;)

George Rebane

Gregory 943pm - I made no mistake in that. Of course the secondary radiation also has a lateral component - it may even be isotropic, although I doubt it. All of that does not change the modeling of it as having an effective and measurable fraction that returns downward, thereby acting as if it had been specularly reflected. (The actual downward component is the result of an exponentially decaying number of subsequent 'collisions'.)

Now tell me again, what is the bet you want to make, maybe I can help.

Douglas Keachie

"radiation isn't just up and down, but equally to the sides. "


Greg visualizes particles as cubes.

I think most reputable physicists would view them as spheres.

If radiation goes out equally in all directions from the center, and the CO2 concentrates close to the ground, unlike the ozone layer which is up in the stratosphere, then nearly 180 degrees of the radiation is headed back to earth, and at least some of the upwards bound radiation will also hit yet more molecules and be sent downwards again. The earth is quite a huge target, when considering most of the CO2 is not more than 500 meters off the ground.

In Greg's cubist universe, I guess he counts on 270 degrees of radiation not returning to the planet. He's a funny guy...


"Greg visualizes particles as cubes."

No Keach, you're way behind and not thinking. Again.

This isn't about the shape of "particles" which, as far as the atmosphere is concerned are things called "molecules" that are definitely not thought of as "spheres". I am rarely shocked at how little you really know but this one is up there.

Regarding my earlier comments, that's how the General Circulation Models visualize the atmosphere, diced up into boxes(a simplification) of a couple hundred kilometers on a side on the surface, stacked up maybe 25 deep. And yes, the IPCC conclusions are based on simulations that crude.


George, no, I very much doubt the GCM would just "reflect" a portion of the heat to make things easy, nor could we agree on a referee for a bet.

Douglas Keachie

Well Greg, yes I kinda wondered about your use of the terminology from the the GCM's that you professed to having such a distaste for. I've known the differences between atoms and molecules since 7th grade. And no, you still haven't learned when I'm deliberately pulling your chain. When dealing with an object the size of a planet, the limiting factor in accuracy is the computer, and they are getting bigger and faster every year, so I would expect modifications to previous semi-predictions to improve with time.

I remember well a discussion about predicting local weather at LLNL, in 1991, when they said they could predict tomorrow's weather perfectly, but that it would take two days of super computer time to do it.

George Rebane

Gregory 734am - Given the scale of the computations required in such discretized models, there is no doubt that the 'reflection' approach I outlined is used. The inclusion of the more detailed scattering models into each cell and through its interface is simply prohibitive, even at today's computer speeds. And the reason that I'm certain of such simplification for CO2 is that science does not yet know what is called the Earth's carbon cycle (another reason why long range climate predictions are fiction). Therefore, inserting tremendous complexity and precision into one small part of the carbon cycle in the GCMs doesn't make sense to those of us who have made their living dealing in large scale simulations and error propagation.

Greg, you appear to be a man with a technical background sufficient to check this out for yourself. And I take you to be a man of honor. So I will have no problem with you being the adjudicator of such a bet.

BTW, besides having been a designer of large scale simulation models, I have looked at certain modules of a NOAA GCM model (for political reasons the entire models are monsters, their operation not known to any single person, and best kept close to their vest to prevent peals of laughter from the peers) in connection with some work on ozone measurements and reporting in the Sierra (google 'ozone, rebane'). There you will also find links to some pretty high-falootin' atmospheric modeling papers that cite my research in learning Bayes nets (google 'Rebane-Pearl algorithm'). E.g. 'Learning Structure from Data and its Application to Ozone Prediction', L.E.Sucar, et.al.

I could go on, but this is already getting too long.

In sum, GCMs take advantage of modeling individual atmospheric energy exchange process, not through application of detailed physical simulations of atomic level process, but instead appeal to higher level and generalized 'regression models' whose states, in the large, have no mathematical relationship to the state spaces in the underlying physics (e.g. modules embodying Bayes nets as reported by Sucar). The process information is passed through datasets of observations. And specifically, I maintain that such an approach is used in the GCMs for CO2's contribution to the so-called greenhouse effect.


"Well Greg, yes I kinda wondered about your use of the terminology from the the GCM's that you professed to having such a distaste for."
-Keachie, 28 January 2012 at 08:51 AM

If you had a clue about finite element analysis, what the adults were talking about, you'd have known.

"I've known the differences between atoms and molecules since 7th grade."
I'm sure that's a use of the word "known" of which I was previously unaware.

"And no, you still haven't learned when I'm deliberately pulling your chain."

I feel no need to divine when you're being a ignorant jerk naturally, as opposed to when you're trying hard to be the ignorant jerk. Why not try growing up? You might even be missed when your vision fails completely.


George, since the amount of the "reflection" would have to change with the temperatures in each direction, especially down, I can't see why you are so wedded to it unless you'd actually read something to that effect. Have you a reference?

George Rebane

Gregory 647pm - there is no problem whatsoever of creating the kind of models I describe that have the directional intensity of 'reflection' depend on multiple input/environment parameters that include temperature as one of them. In fact I'd be surprised if they didn't contain such environmental vectors as part of the input. But all of that can be incorporated in the regression surfaces from either data or the offline running of the detailed physics models. The point is that when it comes to running the GCM based on a gazillion atmospheric and surface cells, you don't want to be doing that kind of physics for each cell.

I'm not "wedded" to this approach Greg, it's the only computationally feasible one to use. In large scale models (including complex aircraft autopilots and missile controllers) we use these kinds of approximating surfaces all the time. The things that make them work is the correct feedback links that don't let the system exceed such models' approximation error bounds.

And no, I don't have a reference other than my own training and experience. Otherwise I would have been sandbagging you on the offer to bet. Mom taught me not to be like that.

Douglas Keachie

There are an awful lot of things you are unaware of, Greg, and good manners I think tops the list.


Keach, you have been defaming me for years. I am not playing games and have never been playing games. I have nothing but contempt for you (you've earned it) and will be happy when you are no longer playing these games. I'd prefer for you to manage to exert enough self control to be an adult in the blogosphere, but if I have to wait for a physical infirmity to slow you down enough for you to just go away, so be it. You will not be missed.

Douglas Keachie

You've been an arrogant clown and real pill from day one, on NCCN.net, and you are so tied up with your "math-y-er than thou" attitude you couldn't see your game if it was painted on a hanger door. It won't take too much luck for me to outlive you, longevity runs in the family. I guess among other things that you do not know about is the ability for the blind to read screens via audio. I guess it will take developing your own infirmities AND developing a warm heart before you will have any understanding. Probably developing the former will completely preclude the latter from ever occurring.

You'd make a lot more friends if you could learn to teach others about their errors in math, rather than berating them, all the while crowing about what a superior being you are. Is this the Claremont Vision your professors and fellow students tried to teach you, or did the real thing fail to take?

Russ Steele

Burt Rutan who signed the WSJ Letter responds to one of his fan who took umbrage with his signing the letter. More details: http://2012nevadacounty.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/a-burt-rutan-fan-disappointed-he-signed-wsj-article-denying-agw/


"all the while crowing about what a superior being you are"

Never happened, Keach. That's you just reacting badly to being shown to be wrong on math and physical science topics, again and again.

I feel for your Stanford BSEE brother.


Russ, Rutan has impressed many in the aviation community with his presentation on problems with AGW science, speaking not as a scientist but as an engineer with long experience evaluating complex data. He was perhaps the scientifically weakest of the WSJ signatories (I'd say Shaviv and Lindzen are the strongest) but he's done a good job of covering the problem. It is all about the theorized positive feedbacks from the water cycle; in the GCM, CO2 and those positive feedbacks were used to account for heat that was in fact from other natural causes the modelers did no know about, like oceanic temperature cycles and solar-magnetic interactions with the climate.

The good news is that the natural fluctuations have gone in the other direction before the CO2 demonization was made complete.

Douglas Keachie

Greg, I will simplify this for you, my brother, four years my senior, has earned at BSEE work, about 1/10th of what I earned in my lifetime so far, as a teacher. Sometimes BSEE's and mental health don't go together so well, which is why I wonder about you too.


Yes, simplification is good.

Mental illness tends to run in families, Keach. There is none in mine that I know of, and I've been declared normal by the only counselor I've gone to, back when I was caring for my dying first wife and our young son. Mental illness would also disqualify me for my flight medical certificate; as I jumped to help the aged mother of my Flight Medical Examiner out of their airplane yesterday, I doubt you could convince him of that cold hearted nature you think I have.

Keach, you are very probably more like your brother than you care to believe.

The folks I know who have met you that I've asked have all considered you to be a very peculiar guy. A loose screw somewhere.

Arrogant clown? Keachie is projecting.


Oh, and I forgot,
"Sometimes BSEE's and mental health don't go together so well, which is why I wonder about you too."

Wrong again, Keach. I don't have a BSEE.

Douglas Keachie

Too bad you are so literal all the time, or do you deny that you have any sort of engineering degree at all? And, again, you are unclear as to when I am pulling your chain.

I had no trouble getting my flight medical certificate either, so I guess we are both sane.

And the only person I know who has had direct contact with you described you, long after we had locked horns, as being very much in person, like I have found you, and then described you, on line.

Being different is not a crime, often an improvement, over the norm.


"Sometimes BSEE's and mental health don't go together so well, which is why I wonder about you too."

Bigotry pure and simple. And brotherly hate to boot. Something else, too, thanks for the clue, Keach. You claim to have at least at one time had an FAA medical certificate, but apparently never any pilot certificate or you'd show up in the FAA database. However, your brother Steve, the guy with the BSEE you often seem to have me confused with, has commercial and instructor certificates for gliders, and is the registered owner of three sailplanes. So he managed to get through flight training and testing, and you didn't. LOL!

"And the only person I know who has had direct contact with you described you, long after we had locked horns, as being very much in person, like I have found you, and then described you, on line."

That is one of the most non-specific, rambling attempts at a failed insult I've ever seen. Let's narrow down this one... have you paid this person large sums, hundreds or even thousands of dollars, for their services?

Douglas Keachie

Paid them nothing for their services, acquaintance via The Union commenters, and that is your last clue. It wasn't intended as an insult. It was a description of reality, or at least the virtual reality you presented to me, as I perceive it.

Washed out? Noooo. I got a job as a lineman at Flightways Aviation by way of my brother (whom I pity far more than dislike) It was about the time of my first marriage, and I got a student's license with intent to learn to fly, but it was a minimum wage job, and as soon as I had my degree, I went on to my first professional job, as a research associate for a Title I project in the Richmond School District. as wifey Poo the First "wanted house , children, everything, the full catastrophe" ~ Zorba the Greek ~ getting the license went by the wayside. Besides, skiing is still king for sensations when it comes to gravity sports, and it is healthier, and somewhat more forgiving of lapse in attention. (Go ahead, it's a free shot, compliments of the management.)

All three gliders still exist, but none of the are or have been airworthy for over 30 years. He keeps moving them from rented space to rented space, and won't sell them to collectors who would restore them. I'm not sure if any of his certificates are still valid.

I know you have unbounded faith in databases and the government, so I propose a bet. $100 says I still have the certificate, and George Rebane can hold the stakes. Oh, I'll be happy to raise that amount 10 fold, but I'm trying to be polite. Could it be possible that Gregory Goodknight is WRONG? END OF THE WORLD!


Anna Haynes isn't a great judge of character, Keach, though you are birds of a feather. The ultimate gravity sport is flying sailplanes, talk to Steve about that. Getting a launch is even cheaper than an all day lift pass.

Yes, Keach, your bro's pilot commercial and instructor certificates are still valid, and he wouldn't need a current med cert to fly a sailplane himself, not giving instruction, though he would have to self certify his health to a point. The student pilot certificate is just a form of the medical certificate, Keach, and it expired two or three years after it was issued. It was issued by the medical examiner, not the FAA central office.


"I know you have unbounded faith in databases and the government"

Wow, another pure Keachie fabrication, a shot made at 90 degrees to Reality.

Douglas Keachie

Greg, freefall experienced during a jump is I guess something you've never experienced at any sizable height, and the adrenalin rush of doing 70 mph with your head two feet off the ground, beats the crap out of anything I ever experienced in my brother's sailplanes or in the Citabrias of Flightways aviation with demos of everything it could do at 8,000 feet out around Mt. Diablo. Now a shuttle launch I could get into....maybe there is a reason to elect Gingrich after all?

Douglas Keachie

Sorry Greg. You are still wrong. I'm still hoping your obstinacy will increase my wealth by $100 dollars. You may take me to court, and the judge can read it for himself, and then you will get billed for both lawyers, and for wasting my time. You claim that, "but apparently never any pilot certificate" I do indeed have a student pilot certificate, and you are 100% wrong about my not having it. If you had left out the word "any" you'd be in great shape, but you didn't, so you are getting precisely what you deserve. $100 please, or just admit that even you can screw up from time to time. And please tone down the insults, you don't own this blog, and George has asked you politely several times. Besides, it show exactly whose blood pressure is headed in what direction.


No Keach, you do not have a Student Pilot Certificate. The combo certificate you used to hold expired two years after you got it, and if you never got a CFI's endorsement it was never even used.

If anyone is interested in what this thing is, here's the application. It is the only medical certificate you can get from the FAA if you don't have a pilot certificate. If your student/medical expires before you earn a Private certificate, you get another combo student/medical.

Here's the application for an FAA medical certificate. Note it's the same app for the combo student/medical cert:

Keach, I make plenty of mistakes. Someday you might even find one.

Douglas Keachie

This link, in Firefox, comes up to a blank document www.aopa.org/members/files/medical/8500-8.pdf

I have a couple of old dollar bills, which used to be called silver certificates. I doubt I can redeem them for silver any more. Would you deny the writing on them?

I still have a certificate that says, and I quote, " Medical Certificate Third Class AND Student Pilot Certificate. Your statement was and still is:

"Something else, too, thanks for the clue, Keach. You claim to have at least at one time had an FAA medical certificate, but apparently never any pilot certificate or you'd show up in the FAA database."

That was in response to:

"I had no trouble getting my flight medical certificate either, so I guess we are both sane."

Since you started to make such a big deal of it, I dug it out, and lo and behold, it is both a medical flight certificate and a student pilot certificate. You said, as plain as day,

"apparent never had ANY pilot certificate"

"any" is the killer here, I do indeed have a student pilot certificate. All the things you say about it may be true, but it is a Federal document, and it is labeled "Student Pilot Certificate" and I rest my case, you are wrong.

The statement you were looking for was: "apparent never had A pilot certificate" You missed it, bent prop award of the day, case dismissed.


It's just a medical certificate, Keach. You fogged a mirror.

Douglas Keachie

Tell it to a judge, Greg. It is a certificate, issued by the FAA, and it says, Student Pilot Certificate, right at the top. You won't win this one, no matter how hard you try, and you might not be able to fog a mirror, if you take it that seriously. Time for you to take your blood pressure meds, before you totally lose it.


And the only thing you did to get it is submit to a medical exam. Including a DRE at no extra charge.

What a putz.

Douglas Keachie

You are the one making the arguments that all of this is a Big Deal. More along the lines of the classic t-shirt, "If you ain't a pilot, you ain't S___" and one more incident of the constant oneupsmanship that so dominates your life, and apparently at your own choosing.

Douglas Keachie

At least you are finally beginning to admit that I have a student pilot certificate that qualifies under the all-encompassing phrase "any pilot certificate," by admitting that all I had to do was: "And the only thing you did to get it is submit to a medical exam." "It" is is important word here. Yes, I have "it," I've had "it" since 1969, and it IS a student pilots license, which meets your condition of "any."

Do you get "IT" now?

Or do you still want to fork over $100, or go the lawyers fees route?

You lost, either way.


Keach, my original statement was from the FAA records and was a true statement. The FAA has no record of ever issuing you a pilot certificate, because they never did. If you never convinced a certified flight instructor you were ready to fly solo, you never even got the student/medical endorsed to allow you to fly even just around the block. You didn't join the club. It's OK, lots of people take a few lessons and decide it isn't for them. I dated one woman who went so far as to get her Private but decided her own attention to detail wasn't enough to be safe. Others decide to quit after soloing, a major milestone that proves something concrete; and no pilot forgets that day. In short, it's not an easy thing to do. Just the private knowledge/written exam is said to represent 1,400 facts you are expected to remember and make sense of.

You fogged the mirror. Congrats to you, and to your brother who managed a commercial glider certificate and glider instructor certificate, a difficult task.

You may also have forgotten the $100 bet was something you dreamed up and I never agreed to. Please feel free to take your $100 to your MD to be used at your next DRE.


"it IS a student pilots [sic] license"

No, it is not. In fact, there's no such thing as a pilot's "license" in the USA.

Here's the image in the wiki

Medical certificate.

Douglas Keachie

AND Student Pilot Certificate, End of story. But you are still not satisfied. I sense that. You see Greg, there was something even one so careful as you hadn't even counted upon. I know you DO so trust the government, your rock of ages, to be eternal and unchanging, but that God has indeed pushed the funny buzzer here and CHANGED the FORM since I got mine back in 1969. So while I will have to kiss my dreams of an extra "C" note good bye, here are the images, front and back, in which the verbiage is very clear, it is BOTH a medical certificate and a student pilots certificate.

You lose.


BTW after a while this link will intentional bury these particular images in the back pages.


There's been no material changes, Keach, virtually the same as the wiki image. As is the usual case, you're missing the forest for the trees.

It's a medical certificate, issued by an MD. And, as I suspected, it was never endorsed by a CFI so you never used it.

Douglas Keachie

I never used it to solo. I never used it to make a cross country trip. I did use it to take a couple of lessons. As I pointed out way back when, as soon as I finished my degree, I got a professional job. I was at Flightways all of three months. I actually do also have a flight log book, but it is in much deeper storage, but next time I see it, I'll post a page or two up here as well.

As of 5:11 pm, 5 people have looked at the enlarged frontside, and four have looked at the enlarged backside, and both sides make a real point of saying it is both a medical certificate AND a student pilot certificate. I can greatly enlarge those portions of the images, if you still aren't able to read them. You should have no trouble if you click through to find the original image.

Douglas Keachie

I suspect the FAA has rather harsh rules for those who take up people as students without having the medical/student pilot certificate. After alll, I could go to any doctor and get a letter that says I'm fit as a fiddle and then try to coax some instructor to take me up and teach me, but that instructor would have to be pretty stupid to do so, risking his own certificate for a lousy lesson fee.


No, Keach. You didn't use it for any lessons, which were all under the authority of the instructor's certificates. You can take lessons for years without a combo cert, and many people do. In fact, a kid under 16 can't even be issued any medical certificate and postpone soloing until they're 16, sometimes ending with a visit to a friendly medical examiner just before they're 16 and getting a cert that is specific that it is not valid until their birthday, and then, after their CFI signs it, they solo on their 16th bday.

It's ONLY needed for you to solo, and yours was never endorsed. The only thing it certifies was your medical status one day in the '60's, as opposed to your brothers, who was (and may still be) qualified to teach others to fly, at least on the ground.

It does just gall you, doesn't it? That's the reason for all those derisive "flyboy" remarks you've sent my way and denigrations of my education. Interesting you've not fessed up to this before, I suppose just another reason you've transferred your hostility towards me when your bro isn't handy. Private college, scientific degree much harder to get than Anthropology (a classic BA for a weak or unmotivated student), and an aviator to boot. No wonder I got under your skin, I was just everything you resented in one package.

I'll have to chat with your brother one of these days, I suspect we'd get along pretty well.

Douglas Keachie

The last line made me laugh the loudest!

But the others were pretty good too.

So an instructor is welcome to take up students and give them lessons without either of these certificates, by just saying, "you're covered under mine?" News to me and Flightways. Doug Shouf (sp?) and Bob Short were adamant that I have it, just to taxi planes around on the ground, with no instructor on board, but being nominally watched by at least one of the instructors. As usual, you are really trying too hard to denigrate any moves I made,in or out of aviation, and in doing so, turn the spotlight back on yourself, in a blaze of private college glory, and UC System envy. By sheer numbers, I'll bet you've been turned down for many a job, where a UC grad was hired. What is it you do, really, legacy systems repair and updates?


Straight from the FAA, Keachie:
"When do I need a student pilot certificate?
Before you can fly solo. You don't need a student pilot certificate to take flying lessons."


"You don't need a student pilot certificate to take flying lessons."

Is that clear enough for you? You're such a stubborn idiot, one can never be sure. That flight school was making up their own rules which they are allowed to do, but it wasn't the FAA forcing them.


Sorry, Keach, but UCLA was my backup school and their Physics department issued me an early admission, as did Mudd, another backup school. No envy there. Had no interest in Berkeley. Fortunately, my kid chose Cal as his backup school from Stanford and the Regent's and Chancellor's Scholar deal was very sweet.

Douglas Keachie

But Greg, as determined as you are to put as many miles between you and your statement:

"Something else, too, thanks for the clue, Keach. You claim to have at least at one time had an FAA medical certificate, but apparently never any pilot certificate or you'd show up in the FAA database.",

I am determined to keep it in play

And I called you out as wrong on that, because you used the word "ANY" instead of the article "a." You are so ticked off that you screwed up, and that I DO have a certificate that says "student pilot certificate" (that makes your statement untrue) that you driving like a drunken tricyclist on Newtown Road..

You also say I never "used" it. This is I guess tantamount to saying it didn't/doesn't exist. Whether I "used" it or not, or "how" I used it, is immaterial to the argument here. Not only was it a requirement of my employment back in 1969, I've used it even today, to have lots of fun with you. We had no medical, and so it took about 3 day's salary to pay for a 20 minute appointment with a doctor the FAA had certified to issue Medical and Student Pilot Certificate. You remember things like that. How far into the ground are you going to corkscrew with this topic? Your statement above is patently false, and I will be more than happy to train you up to that, if you insist on trying to weasel away from your mistake.


"Apparently" is a perfectly good qualifier, Keach, since you were not in the FAA database. And there is no Student Pilot Certificate that isn't also what I said it was, a certificate of adequate mirror fogging. Congratulations. You fogged the mirror but just never managed to get the Student Pilot Certificate endorsed. You never, ever, were granted the privileges of a Student Pilot, and none of your flights were conducted under the authority of a Student Pilot Certificate.

And, more interesting, you chose to hide this for many years while denigrating my choice to fly. What a putz.

Douglas Keachie

"You never, ever, were granted the privileges of a Student Pilot, and none of your flights were conducted under the authority of a Student Pilot Certificate."

Which is totally irrelevant to the argument. A student pilot certificate is a student pilot certificate, whether it is used or not. I have one, and have it still, and that just boggles you mind, since I am, IYNSHO, "a weak or unmotivated student," and it is funny to watch you do it, too.

You keep on loosing, why do you do this to yourself?

Douglas Keachie

If you keep on "loosing" like this, eventually all your nuts will fall out, and then what will you think with?


"So an instructor is welcome to take up students and give them lessons without either of these certificates, by just saying, "you're covered under mine?" News to me"

Apparently so. Imagine how short and sweet the conversation would have been had you not wanted an argument. Student Pilot Certificates certify nothing but your medical status and present a place for instructors to endorse. An unendorsed combo certificate and $4 will get you a fancy cup of coffee and nothing else. Unendorsed, they certify no aviation knowledge or skill. Not surprising in your case.

Did Steve ever take you up in one of the family sailplanes?


"You keep on loosing [sic], why do you do this to yourself?"

You need to tighten up, Keach. The screw got loose again.

Douglas Keachie

"while denigrating my choice to fly."

unlikely, very unlikely, since I make a portion of my living, flying in small plane, and taking photographs:


Douglas Keachie

The 1,194 aerial photos I've taken and posted on Flickr.com are a small portion of what I've shot since I started shooting aerials in 1978 over San Francisco, the Bay Area, and marvy Marin, as well as parts of Mexico.

Douglas Keachie

Greg not paying attention, already stated I had been up numerous times with brother, Fremont, Calistoga, Nevada Dry Lake beds, and Shellville. Winch launches and tows. Learned a lot about weather, cloud types, thermals, etc. Understand transponders, icing issues, and a whole variety of aeronautic stuff. None of it certified or certificated. So that means I'm a complete dunce and unqualified to comment on aviation, or assume any of the angelic royalty you seem to connect with aviation, which is something my brother hates ion other pilots, btw, and if that is the case, then your lack of a teaching credential completely disqualifies you from ever criticizing our schools and teachers in particular. If certification is the only path to knowledge in a particular field ("Unendorsed, they certify no aviation knowledge or skill.") then you have no education knowledge.

How does that work for you?

Douglas Keachie

"You need to tighten up, Keach. The screw got loose again."

Sorry Greg, the nut has to get loose before the bolt gets loose. Screws do not have nuts. Please stay within the chosen metaphors.


"So that means I'm a complete dunce and unqualified to comment on aviation, or assume any of the angelic royalty you seem to connect with aviation"

"Seem" is one of those meaningless words you dredge up when you want to insult someone but there isn't actually any quotes to support it. I'm not responsible for these delusions of yours, Keach. You have a hard time accepting corrections or criticism, that's all, and resort to "sideways logic" or out and out fabrications to hit back. I can't help but know more about flying than you do or have a better understanding about the physical sciences. Anthropology just doesn't expose one to subjects like energy flows or finite element analysis, and you get upset when you can't keep up.

Enjoy your keepsake of a flight training that went nowhere. Might have been best your first "wifey-poo" kept you on a short leash.


Now, George, I would have loved to chat about the topic at hand, but I could either have a fruitful chat with you or deal with the distraction of Keachie. The substantive discussion lost, which is Keachie's Modus Operandi.

Perhaps someday we can have a Keachie-free thread to be serious in.

Douglas Keachie

"I can't help but know more about flying than you do or have a better understanding about the physical sciences." I never said you didn't and likewise I can't help knowing more about teaching in urban and inner city environments than you'll ever have inclination or time to learn. Besides, you'd probably find the pay scales disappointing, and getting along with parents and fellow faculty probably would be very weak suites for you. I am more than capable of picking up a lot from tagging along in George and your strengths, but I'm not so sure you're open to learning anything new or different about education. We all have our strengths, and we all deserve respect, a basic social skill in which you have room for improvement. "First off be a decent, emphatic person."

Now back to your regular scheduled discussion of whether or not a blanket of CO2 up to 1,000 meters deep hugging the earth can act like an over-soaked diaper for the planet. Upon further reflection, maybe that is not a very productive metaphor, as the topic at hand, to reflect or not to reflect, [we're discussing heat here] is a process that doesn't work well in waterlogged environments.


Teaching what, keach? Anthropology?

It may surprise you, but the East of LA classrooms from which I sprang were just as urban as Berkeley, just not as urbane. And I suspect the kids my father taught would have given you a real fit; his early assignments were in the part of the district that had the highest percentage in California of exconvict residents.

When I started fighting the whole language and whole math my son was being fed in the Grass Valley School District, he was completely in my camp.

Say something useful in the education realm, Keachie. Hint: content knowledge trumps pedagogy every time, and I'll be happy to bow to you when it comes to Anthropology.


"First off be a decent, emphatic person."


Showing or giving emphasis; expressing something forcibly and clearly.
(of an action or event or its result) Definite and clear.

I'm there, Keach.

Douglas Keachie

Which brings me to my nonothing layman's question:

Would it not be possible to set up a controlled environment, which at least finds out if increasing concentrations of CO2 in a closed system that was exposed to an external heat source 12 hours of each day, would reveal an increase in temperature in the bottom surface of the experimental site during the night?

imagine a plexiglass box, with an open top, 30 feet high by as big a grant as you can get to build the other two dimensions, testing and keeping records for analysis, only during 24 hour times of little no winds, where the CO2 concentration is controllable, and there are thermal sensors all over the bottom of the box. For simplicities sake, the bottom would be tiled with large granite slabs, at least 6 inches thick, laid on very dense foam. The site for the experiment should be as wind free as possible in the first place. Fairfield is not acceptable.

Has such an experiment already been done?

Douglas Keachie

Actually, you'd want two such boxes, close to one another, similarly situated. The second box has no additional CO2 added, so that you have a control that replicates external ambient temperatures perfectly.

Douglas Keachie

I guess you missed the draft essay on teacher evaluation that I posted here and couple of days back. You have no credential, the equivalent to your pilot certificate, in the education world, therefore, you are not qualified to say anything, remember your Gregistic Logic.

My first professional assignment was in the Richmond Unified School District. Have you ever seen a test score sheet where the kid has filled in the bubbles on a state mandated test to make a perfect smiley face pattern? I've already described Hunters Point where deaths were marked with effigies wearing the actual bullet ridden shirts, with balloons flying high, notes and toys, many candles, and then liquor bottles all around the feet.

Being a student in a ghetto school is to teaching in one, as watching a fire retardant bomber release its load is to actually flying the drop.

Again you are not qualified, now back to physics please, so you get a chance to win a few too.

Douglas Keachie

BTW, was watching time shifted "House," and stealing line at same time:

Definition for empathetic:
Web definitions:
empathic: showing empathy or ready comprehension of others' states; "a sensitive and empathetic school counselor".

"First off be a decent, emphatic person."

I was paying more attention to the show than to the post. "No red squiggles, go for it."


Keachie, your proposed experiment is a flawed and useless investigation of 19th century physical chemistry, of which you remain blissfully ignorant.

By 19th century physical chemistry, a doubling of CO2 would result in about a 1C rise in temps. So from 300 to 600, or 400 to 800, would result in that 1C rise. It took the 20th century to go from about 320 to 390. How long from 390 to 780? Think we could even extract that much fossil fuel going forward?

This is all food for thought presented to you multiple times over the past 5 years, yet you chose to ignore it.

Douglas Keachie

Who, back in 19th century physical chemistry, did the experiment, and where? Or if what you are suggesting is mathematically derived, rather than experimentally., are you discussing the temperature of the gas, or the surface temperature of our experimental "planet," i.e., the temperature 1/2 the way inside the slabs? The latter is what I think we are aiming for. Which is it, in your statements?

Douglas Keachie

It sound s like you are referencing Boyle's Law, which would be inapplicable here:

Robert Boyle (and Edme Mariotte) derived the law solely on experimental grounds. The law can also be derived theoretically based on the presumed existence of atoms and molecules and assumptions about motion and perfectly elastic collisions (see kinetic theory of gases). These assumptions were met with enormous resistance in the positivist scientific community at the time however, as they were seen as purely theoretical constructs for which there was not the slightest observational evidence.

Daniel Bernoulli in 1737-1738 derived Boyle's law using Newton's laws of motion with application on a molecular level. It remained ignored until around 1845, when John Waterston published a paper building the main precepts of kinetic theory; this was rejected by the Royal Society of England. Later works of James Prescott Joule, Rudolf Clausius and in particular Ludwig Boltzmann firmly established the kinetic theory of gases and brought attention to both the theories of Bernoulli and Waterston.[8]

The debate between proponents of Energetics and Atomism led Boltzmann to write a book in 1898, which endured criticism up to his suicide in 1906.[8] Albert Einstein in 1905 showed how kinetic theory applies to the Brownian motion of a fluid-suspended particle, which was confirmed in 1908 by Jean Perrin.[8]


Keachie, sorry, one cannot get an understanding of physics by wielding wikipedia snippets, and no one did your particular experiment because it would have been a waste of time.

Here's a modern treatment for you from a physicist at the Brookhaven National Laboratory:


Douglas Keachie

Dear Greg,

Thanks for the light reading material for breakfast and coffee. You do seem to have at least an inkling of what it takes to be a good teacher, in that you found relatively recent summary materials covering the topic in which the student is interested. Your bedside manner might be improved a bit.


"Following the estimate of Levitus et al. [2005] that the heat uptake of the world ocean constitutes 84% of
the total heat uptake by the climate system (other major components are heating of continental land masses,
5%; melting of continental glaciers, 5%, and heating of the atmosphere, 4%), I evaluate the global heat
capacity pertinent to climate change on the multidecadal scale as 16.7 ± 7.0 W yr m-2 K-1."

something I've often wondered about, is it not possible that the weather associated even small changes in local microclimate warmings might have severe effects on what we consider as normal life styles? As the world paves more and more of its surface with black asphalt, maybe the local global warming near cities is greater than the GMST?

And yes, it would take many re-readings and lookups for me to understand the paper, even 1/8th as well as you do. But no, it is not complete gooble-t-gook. I shared studying for the neuro boards via flash cards with younger daughter the other night, and she was surprised at how much I did understand of what was going on. When I realized how much her work involved what I described as, chemical electronics, and how easy it would be for her to understand EE, she said, "Dad, didn't you know that physics was my favorite hard science?"

When it is all said and done, wouldn't you prefer a planet with clean air?

George Rebane

Debating whether adding CO2 to the stratosphere would raise surface temps is mostly a waste of time. Posit that it will and go on with the magnitude and impact arguments. The magnitude of such increase is so small that the only benefactors from it will be plants. Growing seasons will expand slightly toward the polar latitudes. And yes, 'civilized' heat islands have come up all over the place, but again not enough to make much difference in the global temp. Their main effect has been to contaminate ground level temperature data that the IPCC used to make its first alarmist predictions. Finally, CO2 does not make the air "dirty", even if it increased several hundred percent to levels the earth's biosphere has enjoyed many times in its opulent growth periods in the past.

Now, the political impacts of increasing atmospheric CO2 are a whole different matter.

Douglas Keachie

George, I get the impression that CO2 is largely a groundhugger. See the chart on page 538 in this document. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CLwBEBYwCQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.sfu.ca%2Fcoaction%2Findex.php%2Ftellusb%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F16070%2F17987&ei=U3soT6ylC8_aiQKR2rzHAQ&usg=AFQjCNH-4_cWPCUasv2WcsRBh2P5cV5ncA

Ian Random

Interesting how the simulation of Yucca Mountain is suspect, but not a world wide climate model.


George Rebane

DougK 342pm - Yes, if we could somehow stop the thermal agitation of the atmospheric gases and major air movements laterally across the surface, then CO2 (atomic wt 44) would be the heaviest compared to the two major gases of O2 (32) and N2 (28); CO2 would definitely want to migrate toward the bottom of the barrel. But the mixing energies totally overpower the gravitational effects which produce the homogeneous mix we see.


"You do seem to have at least an inkling of what it takes to be a good teacher, in that you found relatively recent summary materials covering the topic in which the student is interested. Your bedside manner might be improved a bit."

No amount of obscenities would do justice to your thoughts, Keachie. You've spread lies about me in multiple different forums, and your daughters should be ashamed of their father. The "bedside manner" you've received is far better than you've deserved.

I've sent you similar links over the years, and the effect has been as pearls before swine. It's doubtful this one will be any different with time.

"When it is all said and done, wouldn't you prefer a planet with clean air?"

Everyone would, Keach. CO2 is clean. Who would you starve to usher in this alternative energy Utopia we'd have if only the whole world followed the folly of California, Spain and others?


Douglas Keachie

Of course CO2 itself is clean, but some hold that it may help trap heat here on earth, especially in the urbanized and otherwise densely populated regions.

What we know for sure is that:

CO@ is the canary from the coal mine, which heralds all the rest of the not so good stuff that is released into the atmosphere, when burning fossil fuels. It's pretty darn hard to burn oil or coal without producing carbon dioxide.

Have you had your daily dose of sewer gas? Sewer gases may include hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, methane, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Improper disposal of petroleum products such as gasoline and mineral spirits contribute to sewer gas hazards. Sewer gases are of concern due to their odor, health effects, and potential for creating fire or explosions.

The stuff your car produces when burning gasoline or diesel has a lot in common with sewer gas, and a few extra specialties of its own.

Hydrogen sulfide is really nasty stuff, smells like rotten eggs in lower concentrations, and then a funny thing happens in higher concentrations above 70 ppm, it overwhelmes you sense of smell, and you CAN'T smell it. And then at around 1000 ppm, it kills you within minutes.

Small amounts of hydrogen sulfide occur in crude petroleum, but natural gas can contain up to 90%.[6] Volcanoes and some hot springs (as well as cold springs) emit some H2S, where it probably arises via the hydrolysis of sulfide minerals, i.e. MS + H2O → MO + H2S.[citation needed]

About 10% of total global emissions of H2S is due to human activity. By far the largest industrial route to H2S occurs in PETROLEUM REFINERIES: The hydrodesulfurization process liberates sulfur from petroleum by the action of hydrogen. The resulting H2S is converted to elemental sulfur by partial combustion via the Claus process, which is a major source of elemental sulfur. Other anthropogenic sources of hydrogen sulfide include coke ovens, paper mills (using the sulfate method), and tanneries. H2S arises from virtually anywhere where elemental sulfur comes in contact with organic material, especially at high temperatures.

Hydrogen sulfide can be present naturally in well water. In such cases, ozone is often used for its removal; an alternative method uses a filter with manganese dioxide. Both methods oxidize sulfides to much less toxic sulfates.

As for folks dying, they do that already, and if I saw a world wide effort to get internal combustion engines out there to pump fresh water and grow crops and move stuff to market, I might listen to that argument. As it is, only capitalism, and not altruism serves as the main driving force behind the coal petroleum based economies. Givenm that a full push to solar will, in the long run, save far more lives, you know which side I'm on.

Douglas Keachie

BTW, maybe you are concerned they will get around to the leaded gas still used in small planes?

If you were concerned about starving children, how about children with lower IQ's?

The tetra-ethyl lead found in leaded avgas and its combustion products are potent neurotoxins that have been shown in scientific research to interfere with brain development in children. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has noted that exposure to even very low levels of lead contamination has been conclusively linked to loss of IQ in children's brain function tests, thus providing a high degree of motivation to eliminate lead and its compounds from the environment.[15][16]
“ While lead concentrations in the air have declined, scientific studies have demonstrated that children's neurological development is harmed by much lower levels of lead exposure than previously understood. Low level lead exposure has been clearly linked to loss of IQ in performance testing. Even an average IQ loss of 1-2 points in children has a meaningful impact for the nation as a whole, as it would result in an increase in children classified as mentally challenged, as well as a proportional decrease in the number of children considered "gifted."[16] ”

Or maybe the need to speed through the universe exceeds your need for intelligent children? Yes the 186 million gallons of avgas is only .14% of the autogas used on the ground each year, but every bit hurts.

You like being sanctimonious about the starving children, so I thought I'd give it a go, too.


"You like being sanctimonious about the starving children"

A quote of mine illustrating this, please. It isn't just starving children that bear the brunt of energy costing six times as much (a factor used by Energy Sec'y Chu) as it could.

While you're digging for that, a quote illustrating the "the angelic royalty you seem to connect with aviation" quip you made earlier.

Just a couple of the defamations that have sprung from the mind of Keachie. Might not be a lie, Keachie probably believes in the caricatures he carries around in his head more than the reality of what I have written.


"Of course CO2 itself is clean, but some hold that it may help trap heat here on earth, especially in the urbanized and otherwise densely populated regions."

No, they don't Keachie. Get the alarmist science straight... they are doing their best to not claim there is an "urban heat island" effect, because that undermines the claims to CO2 being the culprit.

Where CO2 is supposed to work its dastardly deed is well above the ground,in the upper troposphere, especially over equatorial regions. That large bubble of heat is predicted by all the models but has yet to be found. See page 22, the right side of the screen, for the NASA GISS (Hanson's work) simulation vs the measured reality:

And yes, you've been given that link before.

Keachie, you are both a Lysenko Looney and a Climate Change Clown.

"What a maroon! What an ignoranimus!" -Bugs B.

Douglas Keachie

Did I ever say our realities are the same? You grabbed my totally undefined "some" and assigned to the group you decided it went with, and so IMHO, based on that and a whole lot of other items you choose to expose of yourself online, you are indeed quite the control freak. If i say it is near the ground, and you say all the warming folks are looking for it upstairs but can't find it, doesn't that seem to re-enforce the opinion I posted? I frankly have no desire to waste any more of my time responding to pretty much anything you wish to say, because even if I am in agreement with you, you'll look for some way to use it to attempt to trash me.

I really have to doubt that you are qualified as a resident of this little hamlet, in the social department.


The comments to this entry are closed.