CO2 Science dependent modern marvels. For your consideration.

In light of recent 'dialogues' I've had with Dave NC-20 Burton and others which reveal a profound self-inflicted ignorance and an even worse disinterest in giving climate science a fair shake, (that would be sans politically motivated fantasizing about grand conspiracy theories, slander towards accomplished experts and such paranoid thinking.) I'd like to share the reasons I, a non-expert, feel comfortable trusting the scientific community rather than passionate partisans of profits über alles.

This post is an interesting sort of one way collaborative effort.  
You see, over the years I've communicated with a number of scientists and grads.  Asking straight forward questions and often receiving informative replies.  I try not to over do my welcome, after all these are very busy people with more important things to do.

But for this post I sent a grand shout out to a number of my correspondence pals and received more responses than I expected including some informative surprises for me. 

I have taken great liberty slicing and dicing their responses. Rewriting some, leaving other quotes untouched and giving all of it some order.

I mention this because I want to be clear the following List of "CO2 science dependent" modern marvels is not my own cleverness and I want to send out a big Thank You! to my informed anonymous heroes!  

Also see: February 21, 2016

Archive, Hanscom AFB Atmospheric Studies, Cambridge Research Lab

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/archive-usaf-atmospheric-studies-afcrl.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 since preindustrial times is a given. Understand that the radiative physics of greenhouse gases are very well-understood.

Consider heat seeking missiles flying through different altitudes searching for a heat source who's signature is changing with altitude.  In order to program the computer, the programmer must know how to accurately compensate for the changing signature.  It requires a complete knowledge of the radiative properties of all the gases in the atmosphere, or all that hardware is for naught.

{Incidentally, there is not one contrarian "theory" or challenge to the physics that hasn't been looked at by informed individuals.  You just have to poke around*, you'll find that contrarian errors, omissions, and falsifications have been clearly explained.      *Or you can check out this one stop resource:

 http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

The Republican/libertarian PR machine makes its career out of ignoring all those treasure troves of valuable valid information, because they are scared of it.  It's very human, but cowardly just the same, but I digress.}

You may ask, by what right am I so sure about it? 
It comes down to, down to Earth reality over self-serving fantasizing.

Please consider the real life modern marvels that would be impossible without such understanding:

Senator Inhofe your "Global Warming Hoax" is a hoax !

This post is an interesting sort of one way collaborative effort.  
You see, over the years I've communicated with a number of scientists and post grads.  Asking straight forward questions and receiving informative replies.  I try not to over do my welcome, after all these are very busy people with more important things to do.

But for this post I sent a grand shout out to a number of my correspondence pals and received more responses than I expected including some informative surprises for me. 

I have taken great liberty slicing and dicing their responses. Rewriting some, leaving other quotes untouched and giving all of it some order.

I mention this because I want to be clear the following List of "CO2 science dependent" modern marvels is not my own cleverness and I want to send out a big Thank You! to my informed anonymous heroes!  

Also see: February 21, 2016

Archive, Hanscom AFB Atmospheric Studies, Cambridge Research Lab

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/02/archive-usaf-atmospheric-studies-afcrl.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The increase in atmospheric concentration of CO2 since preindustrial times is a given. Understand that the radiative physics of greenhouse gases are very well-understood.

Consider heat seeking missiles flying through different altitudes searching for a heat source who's signature is changing with altitude.  In order to program the computer, the programmer must know how to accurately compensate for the changing signature.  It requires a complete knowledge of the radiative properties of all the gases in the atmosphere, or all that hardware is for naught.

{Incidentally, there is not one contrarian "theory" or challenge to the physics that hasn't been looked at by informed individuals.  You just have to poke around*, you'll find that contrarian errors, omissions, and falsifications have been clearly explained.      *Or you can check out this resource:
 http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

The Republican/libertarian PR machine makes its career out of ignoring all those treasure troves of valuable valid information, because they are scared of it.  It's very human, but cowardly just the same, but I digress.}

You may ask, by what right am I so sure about it? 
It comes down to, down to Earth reality. 
Please consider the real life modern marvels that would be impossible without such understanding:

Archive, Hanscom AFB Atmospheric Studies, Cambridge Research Lab

This project is inspired by the incredible number of malicious frauds who continue loudly broadcasting that CO2 is failed science and a big hoax.  They deliberately never slow down long enough to think through how utterly ludicrous their paranoid self-certain conviction is.

In this exercise I've combed through the Air Force Cambridge Research Lab's official history, and pulled out what seem to me highlights of their atmospheric research.  It's all frustratingly vague, no hyperlinks here, still it is the official USAF record and offers some tantalizing hints to early Air Force Atmospheric Studies.  

Keep in mind this research took a century's worth of increasing fundamental understanding and evolved it into a thorough understanding of our atmosphere, its components and their physical properties and behavior within our atmosphere's real environment.  

I can be certain of this, even if I'm not an expert, because of all the functioning modern marvels that would have been impossible without that understanding being correct!  Not to mention the insanity of thinking such fundamental nature can be hoaxed away, when thousands are studying it.

I share the following quotes in the hope some may find it a useful tool for digging up more information about early atmospheric studies (Incidentally, such atmospheric research wasn't confined to the USA, Australia, USSR and others, were also solving these fundamental 'mysteries' in order to get on with achieving mastery over weaponry, which they certainly achieved.  

Interestingly, the geophysical understanding developed independently by each nation, totally agreed with each other.  Funny that.)

Chronology From the Cambridge Field Station to the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory 1945 - 1985

Air Force Geohysics Laboratory, Hanscom Air Force Base

Bedford, Massachusetts, USA

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a164501.pdf