Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #685812
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Global Warming is a religion |
| Date | 2018-05-17 06:32 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fm3iseF98hqU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | (11 earlier) <pd8klu$nma$1@gioia.aioe.org> <flrm4tFgsh4U1@mid.individual.net> <pda8vk$1ioo$1@gioia.aioe.org> <flro4hFhajbU1@mid.individual.net> <pdhs79$aj8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
On 17/05/2018 4:10 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 5/13/2018 4:13 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 14/05/2018 6:59 AM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 5/13/2018 3:39 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 13/05/2018 4:06 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>> On 5/12/2018 11:31 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 13/05/2018 10:21 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/12/2018 2:46 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 13/05/2018 1:20 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/11/2018 11:52 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2018 2:11 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 1:18:59 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:25:37 PM UTC-7, James McGinn >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:55:51 AM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pnal...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in another >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you are just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has neither >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search of an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience, and there is zero chance that you are a physicist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't even know that basics of that branch of science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go away, once and for all... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.E.Worlds biggest air polluter will tell you the earth needs >>>>>>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dirty coal.Trump is now their big gun. Get the picture Bert >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 is beneficial. There is zero evidence that it warms the >>>>>>>>>>>>> atmosphere. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Get the picture? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 acts as an insulating blanket.Heat doesnot leak back into >>>>>>>>>>>> space.That is reality of global warming.Bert >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why do you believe that? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **You seem to think that science is a belief system. It isn't. >>>>>>>>>> Your >>>>>>>>>> beliefs are not relevant. Science involves hypothesis, theory, >>>>>>>>>> experiment and proof. The FACT that CO2 acts as a greenhouse >>>>>>>>>> gas was >>>>>>>>>> proven way back in the 19th century. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> same with Water Vapor, it is a greenhouse gas, and dominates the >>>>>>>>> others >>>>>>>>> as it is 50% >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most of the >>>>>>>> time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is >>>>>>>> 50% is >>>>>>>> a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on >>>>>>>> location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing ranges >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the >>>>>>>> dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a really >>>>>>>> dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> so water vapor is 3 to 4 time greater than CO2. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Nope. Read what I wrote. It is not as simplistic as you would >>>>>> want it >>>>>> to be. Both gases vary considerably, depending on time of day and from >>>>>> year to year. In any case, why do you continue to try to simplify it? >>>>>> Just state the facts. >>>>> >>>>> its ratioed, 36%/9% =4 and 72%/26% = 3 good ballpark of 3 to 4. >>>> >>>> **This is not 'best guess' stuff. This is science. Your errors are so >>>> huge that any predictions of global warming, using your data would be >>>> utterly useless. Let's stick the actual data, not your wild >>>> approximations. >>> >>> >>> The data *you presented* says Water Vapor is 3 to 4 times greater than >>> CO2 at glowball warming. >> >> **That is NOT what I presented, you fucking liar. > > no need for course words, **"course words"? In any case, you're a fucking liar. It's a fact. > it is written, and google has it now forever, you posted it on > 5/12/2018, right after benj, this thread > > MID > > <flna9lFhfqfU1@mid.individual.net> <pd70p1$6nt$1@gioia.aioe.org> > > Quote; > > "**Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most of the > time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is 50% is > a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on > location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing ranges from > 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the > dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a really > dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG." > > remember ? **Correct. I did NOT say: "3 to 4 times greater..." Quote me correctly, or I will continue to call you a fucking liar, because that is what you are. > > > >>> >>> get over it. it is simple math using your data. google " ratio " >>> >>> guess you do not know math, which means you do not know science either. >> >> **LOL! Let's read further and see how much math you know. See the end of >> this message for your snipped section. Idiot. > > " Ever ski on the slopes of tensor calculus ? " -Sergio > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And we cannot do anything about water vapor at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Well, not quite. A warming planet, through excessive CO2 emissions, >>>>>> causes more evaporation. >>>>> >>>>> and more evaporation causes more rain. >>>> >>>> **It MAY cause more rain, or it may cause more water vapour to remain in >>>> the atmosphere. >>> >>> so which is it? >> >> **Both. >> >> and why? >> >> **See: 'The hydrologic cycle'. Google it. It's basic year 10 school >> stuff. Ask a 10 year old, if you can't understand it. >> >> or are you waiting for me to tell you ? >> >> **I've provided a starting point for you. Off you go. Even your lap-dog, >> benj, might understand it. **Have you studied the hydrologic cycle yet? There will be questions, so study up. >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> so, what are you propose to do >>>>> about water vapor ? >>>> >>>> **You keep asking that question. Refer to my previous responses. When >>>> you ask the question again, refer, again, to my previous responses. >>> >>> your responce is un-responsive, like a zombie >> >> **Nope. I've already answered your question. Refer to my previous >> 'responce' (sic). >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> nothing, cant, that term cannot be fixed >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and we cannot do anything about CO2 except 0.1% of it. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Really? How do you arrive at that figure? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> internet sources, here are some others, do you have any solid ones ? >>>> >>>> **Cite. >>> >>> you do not have any other evidence to counter 0.1 % CO2 >> >> **Cite your source of the 0.1% claim. >> > > https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html **Failure to answer duly noted. Let me remind you of YOUR claim: "and we cannot do anything about CO2 except 0.1% of it." > > >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Percentage we are (supposedly) responsible for= 0.1% >>>> >>>> **Cite. >> >> **Cite. **Cite. >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 0% is man made. >>>> >>>> **That would be extremely pedantic of you. Humans are responsible for >>>> the release of billions of Tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere. >>>> >>>> The carbon has been on this planet since it was >>>>> created. >>>> >>>> **Duh. >>>> >>>> >>>> It was once in the air and was captured by plants that later >>>>> turned into coal and oil. Man is just releasing back into the air what >>>>> was once there in the first place. Right now there is about 380ppm of >>>>> CO2 in the air. >>>> >>>> **BZZTT! It's MUCH closer to 410ppm. It was 380ppm way back in 2006. >>> >>> and that is only a 0.038% or 0.00038 of air. >> > > https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html ** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Current_concentration "It currently constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere, (equal to 410 ppm)" > >> >> >>> >>> of that human contribute less than 3% of that, or .0000114 >>> >>> parts per MILLION a trace gas bonehead >> >> **And again: What is your point? **And again: What is your point? >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In the past it was over 5000ppm and the earth did just >>>>> fine. >>>> >>>> **Well, it did, except sea levels were several hundred Metres higher >>>> than they are today. It was also MUCH hotter. Too hot for human >>>> survival. >>> >>> URL ? >> >> ** >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png >> >> >> >> how much hotter ? >> >> ** >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png >> >> >> >> 1 degree C ? >> >> ** Nope. Nearer 12 degrees C. >> >> >> How much higher was the ocean >>> in feet ? >> >> **No idea. No scientist on this planet uses such arcane measurements >> anymore. If you want to discuss science, then you need to adopt the >> measurements used in science. >> >>> >>> get to specifics. >> >> **Done. Unlike you, I supplied the requested cites. >> >>> >>> And, to re-state: >>>> >>>> No one ever claimed that the planet would not be fine with higher >>>> atmospheric CO2 levels. The problem is that many humans will experience >>>> considerable difficulty with global warming. >>>> >>>> No tipping point. >>> >>> <snip crap> >> >> >> **And here is where I unsnip your stupidity How about you answer my >> questions, since I answered all of yours): >> >> **Well, it could be argued that the high CO2 WERE the result of a >> 'tipping point'. > > na > https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html **Failure to make a valid point duly noted. > >> >>> >>> About 6% comes from human activities , totally overwhelmed by natural >>> sources. >> >> **Huh? If I could obtain a 6% year on year interest on my investments >> for 150 years, I'd be pretty damned happy. Like it or not, humans have >> increased atmospheric CO2 levels by around 43%. That means your 6% is >> VERY significant. > > cite? **Cite what? YOU made the 6% claim. > >> >>> >>> So before it was something like 0.3% but over the last 20 years it has >>> risen to 0.4%, and so that is what is causing all the problems... >> >> **What the fuck are you talking about now? > > science dude. > https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html **Again: What the fuck are you talking about now? CO2 concentration is currently around 410ppm (0.041%, NOT 0.4%). Your figures are out by more than an order of magnitude! If you make such fundamental errors, time after time, how can we possibly believe a single word you type. You don't know the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, you don't know that CO2 is a molecule and you seem to think that the "Sun hits CO2 atoms". So much ignorance and so little time to educate. > >> >> More of your ignorance? > > insults towards me, only get you more science > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth **I don't insult you. I merely draw your attention to you more egregious errors. > >> >> So, what the fuck are you talking about? > > > https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html > **OK, I get it now: You don't understand and you don't knw, so you just blather. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 09:56 -0700
Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-10 10:42 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 10:55 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 12:25 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-10 16:06 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 16:30 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-10 17:26 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 18:16 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 13:18 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 15:28 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 21:02 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 23:03 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-05-11 14:49 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 20:58 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 21:11 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-11 21:42 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-12 14:52 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 10:20 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 14:55 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 12:27 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 05:46 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 19:21 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 14:31 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 01:06 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 06:39 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 15:59 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 07:13 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 13:10 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 06:32 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 16:05 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 08:27 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 20:08 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 13:30 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 18:36 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 20:14 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 08:36 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 05:42 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 19:19 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 08:53 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-05-10 12:54 -0700
Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 11:19 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 10:23 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-22 14:35 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 16:28 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-11 13:52 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 07:45 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-12 06:49 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 18:27 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-12 11:59 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 00:02 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 21:13 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-12 12:00 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 10:25 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 15:00 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 08:40 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 06:01 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 19:17 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 21:07 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 22:13 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-12 13:40 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 14:52 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-05-12 16:03 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-05-12 17:45 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 16:18 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 19:22 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 17:57 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 14:42 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 05:49 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 04:34 -0700
csiph-web