-1=e^ipi

A direct energy device isn't a source of energy. Where is all this energy coming from to do what you claim? No, localized weather is not global climate. In the long run the Earth will approach an equilibrium where radiation coming from the sun will equal radiation the Earth radiates into outer space. The hotter the Earth, the more energy it radiates. In order to change long run global temperatures you need to change this balance (examples: increasing greenhouse gases will re-absorb some of the energy the Earth radiates to space, changing the Earth's albedo by removing glaciers or reforesting an area would change the global temperature, building a giant space mirror to reflect radiation away from the Earth would affect global temperature, etc.). Yes, I have a background in physics. You seem to be under the impression that physics = magic and that someone can just wave a magic wand and do whatever they want. Physics has to follow the laws that govern the universe. With respect to resonant frequencies, yes they exist; but I'm not sure how relevant it is when discussing weather systems. You still have to satisfy conservation of energy, the second law of thermodynamics, etc. Again, you can't just wave a magic wand and do whatever you want.

If you are referring to the butterfly effect, chaos theory cannot somehow circumvent the long run global temperature balance to such an extent.

Yeah, what you claim is simply not possible. The magnitudes of energy available to humans vs the amount of energy that it would require are too different. In localized situations and under the right circumstances, can humans cause it to rain when it otherwise wouldn't? Sure. But weather is not climate and the magnitude between making it rain in one location vs trying to manipulate the global climate to an extent that you counteract AGW from increased CO2 emissions is too different. Edit: I'll give you an analogy. It's like saying a person can lift a mountain because they can lift a heavy rock.

Anyway, redoing the calculations with a more accurate 3C increase by 2100 and an arctic amplification factor of 2.5, I get: T1(t)-T2(t) = ΔT(t) = (ΔT(2014))*exp(-τ*(T1(t)-T1(2014))), where T1(t) is the temperature of the Ferrel Cell at time t, T2(t) is the temperature of the Polar Cell at time t, ΔT(t) is the temperature differential at time t, and τ is a constant. Rearranging the equation gives T2(t) = T1(t) - (ΔT(2014))*exp(-τ*(T1(t)-T1(2014))). Taking the derivative with respect to T1(t) gives ∂T2(t)/∂T1(t) = 1 + τ*(ΔT(2014))*exp(-τ*(T1(t)-T1(2014))). Setting t = 2014 gives ∂T2(2014)/∂T1(2014) = 1 + τ*(ΔT(2014)). Using the values ∂T2(2014)/∂T1(2014) = 2.5 and ΔT(2014) = 13.5K, we find that τ = (2.5-1)/13.5K = 0.1111/K. Using this value of τ, we can estimate the temperature difference for 2100. ΔT(2100) = (ΔT(2014))*exp(-τ*(T1(2100)-T1(2014))) = (13.5K)*exp(-0.1111/K*(3K)) = 9.67K. Given that the speed of the jetstream is approximately proportional to sqrt(∇T) (as shown earlier), we should expect that the speed of the Northern Polar Jetstream will be sqrt(96.7/13.5) ≈ 84.6% the level it is now (or a 15.4% decrease in speed). Using the relationships explained earlier, this 15.4% decrease in the speed of the jetstream should lead to a decrease in the wavelength of the jetstream by 8.0%, an increase in the amplitude of the jetstream by 9.7%, an increase in the frequency of resonance phenomena by 28.4%, a decrease in the group velocity of the jetstream by 15.4%, an increase in the duration of non-resonant weather events by 9.7%, no change to the duration of resonant phenomena, and an increase in the mean magnitude of the longitudinal pressure gradient by 9.7% (mean latitudinal pressure gradient is unchanged). So yeah, using the earlier values which gave a lot of benefit of the doubt to the climate alarmists, I might have overestimated expected change by a factor of two.

Maybe it will help if you can clarify your position. Aren't you saying that you do not believe AGW because you believe that governments can control the weather?

If you are referring to your claims of some secret government organization being able to control the global weather (please tell me if I misunderstand), that easily shown to be ridiculous if you just compare the available energy that people have access to and the amount of energy that would be required to do such a thing. As a simply order of magnitude comparison: Global Power Production is 474 EJ per Year. Total Solar Energy that hits Earth is 3,850,000 EJ per Year. Even if humans could harness all of the wind on the planet, we are only looked at about 7889 EJ per Year.

I am merely pointing out reality.

Look the basics aren't even that hard. Here, I'll try to dumb things down for you: Ever notice that when things get hot they start to glow red (then even white if they get even hotter)? This is due to a phenomenon known as black body radiation. Basically, as things get hotter they emit more radiation and the frequency of the radiation gets higher (i.e. the color of the 'glow' changes). The sun is very hot (about 6000 Kelvin). Thus it emits black body radiation in the visible spectrum. That is why when you look at the sun it looks very bright. The earth is cooler (about 287 Kelvin). It still emits black body radiation primarily in the infrared spectrum (i.e. heat). Humans cannot see this because their eyes can only see visible light. The earth is basically in equilibrium. Radiation comes from the sun and hits the Earth, warming it. However, the Earth will also emit radiation, which will go into outer space. In equilibrium, these two values have to be equal. Here is a diagram of the emission spectra of the Sun and of Earth: Notice how the Sun emits visible light while the Earth emits infrared? Anyway, with respect to CO2 it is this colourless and odourless gas that you exhale. Anyway, different gases have different absorption spectra (i.e. what frequencies of light they like to absorb). Due to how atoms work, gases tend to have these absorption bands (frequencies where they like to absorb incoming radiation). If you look at the above diagram, you can see the absorption spectrum of CO2. Notice how the absorption spectrum of CO2 is stronger for the infrared light that the Earth likes to emit compared to the visible light that the Sun likes to emit? This means that CO2 is basically transparent to light from the sun (i.e. light can get to the surface so that you can see the sun), but the atmosphere is very opaque to radiation from the earth (i.e. it is more difficult for light from the surface of the earth to reach outer space). So as you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it becomes more and more opaque to radiation emitted by the Earth. This makes it more difficult for black body radiation from the Earth to reach outer space because more of that radiation will get absorbed by the CO2. As a result, this will change the balance of how much radiation the Earth absorbs from the sun to the amount of radiation that the Earth emits into outer space. Thus, this will cause the Earth to warm.

Another reason is that you are incapable of reason even when evidence is presented to you. As shown by the fukushima thread.

Yeah, this pisses me off to.

Still can't tell if trolling or not... Not sure how scientists changing their minds when presented with new evidence is something that disproves AGW. Science is supposed to work like that...

Wont the Mars One missions happen within a decade? Trolling?

So well understood that you get large sections of the population not understanding the difference between carbon dioxide and carbon. All it accomplishes is a complete dumbing down of an issue that is quite complex. Speaking of dumbing down, have you learned basic calculus yet? This is completely absurd. A person trying to make a distinction between carbon dioxide and carbon is on an obfuscating mission, but all the people that try to confuse the two and think the distinction isn't necessary aren't?

I think I would beat you in that regard.

Can't tell if trolling or deluded...

No, it is more like he doesn't even understand basic high school chemistry. How can any intelligent discussion on the issue of AGW take place if people do not even know what CO2 is? It is like not understanding the difference between water and O2 and then pretending that such a distinction is trivial. Yes the media is largely at fault. They should stop calling it a 'carbon tax' and call it a 'CO2 emission tax'.

I was referring to the Rideau Canal...

No, just some of them.

Enjoy your diabetes.

There are other hearings with different scientists, this was just one I watched recently and wanted to share it because of the lack of scientific knowledge of the senators. Ian Clark primarily did stick with uncontroversial science (though his bias dis slip through a few times). But it's not like the senators would be able to tell the difference between junk science and real science. You could probably give them a presentation of homeopathy and they would then agree to pass laws to allow for homeopathic 'medicine' to be covered by health care plans.

I think I might need to retract my claim regarding polar amplification and the T^4 nature of blackbody radiation. The polar amplification is basically entirely due to changes in albedo. There is some evidence to support my earlier claim (see link below) but for the most part I retract it. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-005-0018-3#page-1 Also, I wanted to add that after more investigation, a 4°C increase in global temperatures by 2100 corresponding to a doubling of current CO2 levels an over estimate. Various sources including the IPCC consistently indicate that a value of 3.0°C by 2100 for a doubling of CO2 levels is most likely the most justified value based upon the evidence. Perhaps one could argue that 3.2°C, 3.3°C or even 3.5°C are better values, but 4.0°C is too high. Below is a paper by James Hansen that gives strong support for 3.0+/-0.5°C for a doubling of CO2 levels in the short run (i.e. the time scale of a century in the context of the discussion). http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf In addition, a number have sources have convinced me that polar amplification factor for the arctic of 3.33 is too high. Perhaps a value closer to 2.5 is better. Paleoclimate data can justify a factor as low as 2.0. The recent paper below is especially interesting for this topic. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v509/n7499/full/nature13260.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20140508 Anyway, the overestimation of these two values means that my Quantification of Expected Change overestimates the amount of expected change to the jetstreams due to increasing CO2 levels. Though I was trying to be generous to the climate alarmists. Similarly, my claim of 0.7m sea level rise by the end of this century is also too high.

Fair enough, but he sort of is a denier, to be honest.

This whole thread seems like an attempt to set up some appeal to motive fallacy. But anyway... Insane conspiracy noted. Please remember to put on your aluminium foil hat.

@ Bryan - He only admitted to the distinction being 'beyond him' after being pressed for not answering the questions for 5 minutes. And even then he implied that his lack of knowledge was not relevant.

People make mistakes. The Pro-Russian rebels made a mistake and accidentally shot down a civilian airplane. How hard is that to understand? No motive is needed.