Ah Sams ,how does the configuration of the electrons affect the absorbtion of energy by CO2 molecules?When you talk about energy exchanges at an electron level you are talking about chemical reations which involve the exchange of positive and negative ions.Energy from the Sun causes molecules to vibrate.CO2 does absorb at least 10% more energy than other gases,but you are saying that the additional ratio by man of CO2 1:10,000 is somehow more potent by a factor of 1,000.

I suspect Sams,that your theory of configuration of electrons is nothing but poetic licence.There are three energy levels Sams.Kinetic energy caused by movement and heating,chemical energy involved in the exchange of ions and nulear energy that which powers our Sun.
Which energy are you alluding to in relation to CO2?

Arjay: "but you are saying that the additional ratio by man of CO2" .. blah .. blah

I'm never said anything of the sort. There is no point discussing the science with someone that doesn't know the fundamentals. I simply pointed out that you are clueless when it comes to physics, and are just spewing forth incoherent mumbo jumbo. Something that is more than adequately illustrated by your description of kinetic energy, chemical energy, etc. as "energy levels".

Crock: "Sams, you have outdone yourself."

But according to you you've only just joined in the last day. How can you say I've "outdone myself"? Then you deny you are an astroturfer but then say (all innocent like) "whatever that is" despite the link I provided for everyone. Hmm.

It looks to me like Arjay's stumbled upon some high school science textbooks and he's trying to refute AGW with them. Sams is right - he obviously hasn't a clue about the basic physics and chemistry and is just embarrassing himself.

I think that Sams is also right about the 'astroturfers' - they often pop up here on certain topics, and AGW is certainly one of them.

Hmmm ... so it's a cardinal sin to enter a forum for the first time? The other part of your accusation was that "crock "was an alias set up to attack you! Sounds like delusions of grandeur to me or maybe just the common garden variety elitism which runs through your posts, . Why won't the ignorant masses just shut up and think what they're told to? There are very few hard facts in the universe, Sams, and as far as I can see, you have yet to find one, whether it's about human beings or global warming.

Arjay,

With sincerity, I have (on a number of occasions) invited you to Professor Barry Brooks' site:

http://bravenewclimate.com/

You have chosen not to engage, preferring OLO with its word limits, post and time constraints - that is your choice.

Given that your understanding of the science is very rudimentary, may I suggest you consider reading the following 'on-line'. It is only one chapter, but quite illuminating.

http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/4992.htm

This thread has gone way off topic, but serious issues have followed; not least the inadequacy of education in science and the understanding of it.

I am sure you have special skills and expertise in certain fields, but you must admit, it is not in science, and certainly not in any of the 'climate sciences'.

I would much prefer to hear/listen to your opinions on how we (humanity) are going to adapt to a warmer and wetter world (and all that entails).

I would also appreciate your opinions on how to mitigate GHG pollution.

We only have one planet Earth to experiment with, it would be wise to proceed with caution - don't you think?

Sunspot watchers might be interested in this page.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/sun-has-first-spotless-calendar-month-since-1913/

David