He was responding to you, quoting your own words. You inserted that phrase into the thread as I showed at #205 so cease the blatant dishonesty please.

Even more than that, it wasn’t even a direct quote of his own words. Before my comment, the phrase “Climate science is basic physics” appears exactly once on this page. Yet for some reason it is in quotation marks… But honest has never a trademark characteristic of denialists.

You know the answer to that. M2 has already established on other threads that he believes his use of sophistry outweighs science (and everything else) any old day. It is abundantly clear that what ails him lies well outside the purview of climate science.

Seriously, DNFTT.

Except for #212 Kevin O’Neill: “All of climate science is grounded in basic physics”

He was responding to you, quoting your own words. You inserted that phrase into the thread as I showed at #205 so cease the blatant dishonesty please.

OilMan’s quote only serves to underline what I wrote earlier – for ‘basic’ read fundamental.

This squirrel is now dead.

I make no claim to understand even the basics, except some of the basics, just not all of the basics

Then shut up with the lazy, ignorant denialist blather and read a textbook. Inform yourself.

capnkrunch writes “Funny how that phrase appears no where else in this thread despite being in quotes.”

Except for #212 Kevin O’Neill: “All of climate science is grounded in basic physics”

You can easily find “basic physics” on this blog via this command given to Google:

inurl:http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/ “basic physics”

It’s on other blogs of course since the same talking points (and the same commenters!) are found in many places.

AnOilMan writes: “For the basic physics I recommend Dennis Hartmann’s Global Physical Climatology; ”

There’s the answer. It means the basic physics of climatology, or the things you need to know to understand climatology. I understand “basic physics”; but climatology is complex and I make no claim to understand even the basics, except some of the basics, just not all of the basics in case anyone wanted to make a list.

“Climate science is basic physics”

Funny how that phrase appears no where else in this thread despite being in quotes. This is a dishonest.

The first mention is at #205: by M2:

How many people here say “Its basic physics!” — well, no. There’s very little about Basic Physics that can “inform” a person about “climate science” or we would not be having this conversation.

And for some time since we have been having this conversation.

“Climate science is basic physics”

Funny how that phrase appears no where else in this thread despite being in quotes. This is a dishonest. Note what Kevin O’Neill actually said:

Climate science is wholly based on physics.

But then I don’t think anyone expects integrity from Michael 2.

The answer is special meaning since none of these basic physic curricula discuss carbon dioxide and its accompanying quantum energy levels and what it takes to capture a photon (or emit one) and whether and in what circumstances the carbon dioxide gives up its energy by collision rather than radiation.

No, the given example was thermodynamics applied to a specific system. Specific applications of thermodynamic principles won’t show up in the syllabus. Thermodynamics is very much basic physics (it shows up in the last link provided).

Your we is not my we.

Then read a textbook on physical climatology. It is a science, not a socialist gambit for world government.

1. If we know enough then we need no more climate scientists, no more research grants. I’ll vote for that.

And be rendered blind to the implications of climate change as it unfolds? This would impair your ability to act in your own self-interest.

and whether and in what circumstances the carbon dioxide gives up its energy by collision rather than radiation.

The majority, IIRC. You are welcome to check and consider whether it would or would not cause a generalised warming of the atmosphere.

Hmm, not much pertinent to climate and carbon dioxide. Let’s try some other sources.

Might be worth reviewing this chapter:

– Energy – its different forms (kinetic, potential,…) and its conservation

And then this:

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

Perhaps I should have said fundamental physics, not basic.

We understand the atmospheric physics and we have the palaeoclimate record. We know enough.

BBD wrote “We understand the atmospheric physics and we have the palaeoclimate record. We know enough.”

Your we is not my we. But we seem to have looped back to the top.

1. If we know enough then we need no more climate scientists, no more research grants. I’ll vote for that.

2. If we understand atmospheric physics see #1.

Thank you for providing an example of what you mean by “basic physics”: “requires that IR absorbent, non-condensing gasses such as CO2 will inhibit the efficiency at which energy is lost to space and so cause an energetic imbalance to build up within the climate system.”

Except for “energetic imbalance” (*) I agree with your description, although I still think it is not as basic as all that.

* “Behavioral Signs of Energetic Imbalance. By Felice Dunas, PhD” [http]://www.acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/at/article.php?id=31898

So the question seems to be whether your use of “basic physics” is the ordinary meaning of the words or encapsulates special meaning. The answer is special meaning since none of these basic physic curricula discuss carbon dioxide and its accompanying quantum energy levels and what it takes to capture a photon (or emit one) and whether and in what circumstances the carbon dioxide gives up its energy by collision rather than radiation.

[http]://ww2.odu.edu/~skuhn/PHYS101/Syllabus.pdf
Topics to be covered include:
– What is Physics? What is Science?
– What is the Universe made of?
– What interactions occur between the basic building blocks of the Universe?
– Describing motion (Kinematics)
– Forces – their properties and their effects (Dynamics)
– Momentum and its conservation
– Energy – its different forms (kinetic, potential,…) and its conservation
– Rotation (angular velocity, angular momentum, centripetal acceleration, torque)
– Gravity, Projectile motion and satellite orbits
– Electrostatics
– Electric current and circuits
– Magnetism and magnetic induction

Hmm, not much pertinent to climate and carbon dioxide. Let’s try some other sources.

Heat transfer appears in this syllabus. It gets one day, followed by one day each for the first and second laws of thermodynamics:
[http]://public.wsu.edu/~thiessen/p101/p101syl.html

Here’s an online course that seems fairly comprehensive for a Basic Physics curriculum:
[http]://study.com/academy/course/intro-to-physics-course.html